Just so everyone is on the same page for this discussion, I believe that dbateman is criticizing the activities seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YurkFqp_Pss
Well, first of all, no one is "shooting." It's not a real "firing line." They have pink laserguns. They project light. The models in the video have plastic slides. They don't reciprocate. They don't go "bang bang bang." The difference is immediately apparent in the hand.
I personally don't think Mike Hughes is an "idiot." I would bet you good money that he
didn't just toss down a duffle bag mixed with live weapons and SIRTs and say, "Oh, please don't pick up the live weapons. Only holster the SIRTs."
Any class where this type of activity occurs
should have numerous, redundant safety precautions to ensure that no live weapons find their way onto the line. Knowing what I know of Mr. Hughes and his professionalism, I am confident that he took such measures.
I could think of dozens of reasons why being 'downrange' of a person could be extremely valuable while coaching them in the manipulation of an
inert training pistol. The simple fact that standing in front of someone allows you to see different things than is possible from standing behind them (or to the side), should be apparent. The implications of this should be obvious: the more information an instructor has about his student, the better he can educate her. By standing in front of her, he might notice any number of problems with grip or trigger manipulation that might not have been evident from another angle.
I have never seen anyone walk out in front of people using inert pistols or wile dry firing, I did try and think of why I would want to be out there if I was instructing and to be honest I don't think I would gain anything from being out in front of the firing line.
If you have any evidence that Mike Hughes just waltzes out in front of people while they are firing live weapons, I'd love to see it. Until then, you can keep betting that he "will probably" do that one day, while I will personally bet that he "probably won't."
I fail to see how your point in red doesn't
directly contradict your point in blue.
If you are pointing a plastic firearm at someone in a CQB scenario,
you are violating firearm safety rules. People tend to accept this because...
you're not actually using a firearm.
Because it is necessary to do it as part of training it is a risk but it needed to be there to give the student experience, however when it comes to people who have never handled a firearm before when you are teaching them with a plastic gun or a real gun you are teaching them behaviour
So you're fine with breaking these unbreakable rules for certain parts of training: you've made that clear. But if people break the exact same rules during a different part of training, which is actually lower stress and less chaotic, they are "idiots."
No, if I am pointing a firearm at you I intend to shoot you (unless you comply). The same is true in training even though the weapon has been cleared or is inert it is a necessary part of training or it would not be done.
Different contexts require different levels of scrutiny. I would think that was self-evident. As I noted from your quotes above, you implicitly acknowledge this by saying that inert training weapons are acceptable for CQB and for handing to complete neophytes.
Not really they are at polar opposites, but one thing is for sure is you train sloppy you work worse if you're muzzling your partner as you clear the stair well with a plastic gun in training you are going to do it when you go to work... At least try not to do it in training so when your working and have 1000 things going thru your mind you don't need to remind yourself not to accidently shoot your team mate.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
How far does your hard line stance extend? Do you think that people who point water pistols at each other are "idiots" who "have no business using a real [pistol]"?