Appendix followup

[orionz06]

Not tracking -- can you elaborate on your thinking?

My thinking initially or my thinking now that this horse carcass has been strewn across 3 counties?


My thinking initially was perhaps a conversation regarding Gunsite should happen among calm and rational adults to determine if the perceived high count of less than safe instances was real, a part of their program, or solely related to the high volume of shooters that pass through. I would have then mentioned that I was inclined to believe this based on first hand stories told to me by people who were there when they happened. Pair that with verifiably true accounts mentioned here and on other forums I think that conversation may hold some value with how to weigh the less than safe instances.



Now that this horse is in three different counties and people are discussing which branch of mathematics best allows them to keep their original opinion I wish I never mentioned anything.



The one gem to come out of it... Jody's post discussing the down time between shooting strings leading to an unspoken pressure to finish faster. Todd then posted this:

Which I have seen. It should also be noted that he made it verbally clear that slow is ideal, as well as taking time to show the only student in my class who was shooting AIWB a few different AIWB specific things to mitigate the risks.










On with the show.

[GJM]

With the exception of one statement, and a mild disagreement on DK, I think we are together. (For the record, I am suspicious of anything out of Cornell except fisheries management advice, but I will defer to you on DK, since it is not central to this thread.)

You wouldn't expect Olympic swimmers to die of drowning at the national average, even though they probably spend far more time in the water than the average American.

I want to discuss hazardous activities, since that is what we are discussing. Participants in hazardous activities, such as racing cars, flying aircraft, and climbing, are actually quite susceptible to increased risk by virtue of increased exposure, despite high skill levels. It goes like this. Someone who engages in hazardous activities is dangerous when they are not experienced at it. However at some point, the exposure to hazardous activities stops materially improving their ability at that hazardous activity, and just increases their exposure to a bad outcome. Here is a flying example, and accept it in general terms to keep it simple. In terms of accidents, about 80% of are pilot failures, and 20% are mechanical failures. Most pilots flying less than 200 hours a year are not current enough to be safe. By the time they reach 400-600 hours a year, they have fully developed skills, and beyond that point, all they are doing is increasing their risk of a bad outcome from a mechanical failure, that their highly developed skills can't save them from.

[ToddG]

GJM -- Cornell's entire veterinary program is world class and it has one of the highest respected and most successful Hotel Administration schools in the world. Credit where it's due.

Otherwise I get exactly what you're saying regarding hours, etc. To put it in shooting context, no matter how skillful someone is, the more time they spend standing on the line at a public range the more opportunities there are for some idiot to shoot them accidentally. The skilled shooter will probably be better able to see trouble before it starts but if he chooses to stay and take the risk then his superior skill hasn't helped him in any way.

[GJM]

My wife said ornithology, too.

[ToddG]

My wife said ornithology, too.

My wife said Industrial Labor Relations, but she may be biased.

[BaiHu]

...The skilled shooter will probably be better able to see trouble before it starts but if he chooses to stay and take the risk then his superior skill hasn't helped him in any way.

All I can add is humor to this:

"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons."

[JustOneGun]

With the exception of one statement, and a mild disagreement on DK, I think we are together. (For the record, I am suspicious of anything out of Cornell except fisheries management advice, but I will defer to you on DK, since it is not central to this thread.)



I want to discuss hazardous activities, since that is what we are discussing. Participants in hazardous activities, such as racing cars, flying aircraft, and climbing, are actually quite susceptible to increased risk by virtue of increased exposure, despite high skill levels. It goes like this. Someone who engages in hazardous activities is dangerous when they are not experienced at it. However at some point, the exposure to hazardous activities stops materially improving their ability at that hazardous activity, and just increases their exposure to a bad outcome. Here is a flying example, and accept it in general terms to keep it simple. In terms of accidents, about 80% of are pilot failures, and 20% are mechanical failures. Most pilots flying less than 200 hours a year are not current enough to be safe. By the time they reach 400-600 hours a year, they have fully developed skills, and beyond that point, all they are doing is increasing their risk of a bad outcome from a mechanical failure, that their highly developed skills can't save them from.

I see what you are saying and the ideas about training do apply as does your example if you are worried about an equipment malfunction causing it. But I still believe you are using statistics incorrectly. As previously stated you are applying a data set to individuals. You are turning statistics directly into odds and it just doesn't work that way.

The more you fly the more you risk having an unrecoverable mechanical malfunction occur. This then can kill you. This occurs because of accumulated stress on an airframe directly related to flight hours. Obviously it's more complex than this but your idea would be correct here.

That has nothing to do with the pilot forgetting to put the landing gear down and causing a crash. The odds of that happening are 50/50 every time they land. You either do it right every time or you don't. Of course that is also simplistic and there are a lot of other factors involved.

The odds are the same of you shooting yourself every time you draw and holster. I can make that mistake on the first holster or the last. There is nothing related to time or sheer numbers that makes it more or less dangerous. The odds just don't change over time.

As Todd said, it has more to do with why a gun goes bang when you don't want it to and how you go about avoiding it as a system. How do we keep that system from breaking down? How do we make sure the system is done correctly every time? All good discussions that we've had.

How many times you draw somehow adding up over time to shooting yourself just can't happen. People sometimes shoot themselves. There are reasons for that. But using your flight training example gives an incorrect idea that it is just a matter of time for all of us.

[YVK]

Thankfully, there are rare cases that are survivable. My wife had about 1.5" of her femoral artery completely blown away in her shooting last October. I just checked the label cam footage and it took a little over 3 minutes from the time that she was shot until the tourniquet was applied. Is that a really long time for an arterial bleed, or would that be considered a really fast response?

Three minutes to a tourniquet is a good response time. I've seen one case of aortic rupture that self-tamponaded itself and the girl lived, it happens but that's a unicorn type of a case. Also, if a tourniquet was applied, I assume above the wound, then it shouldn't have been a proximal level of injury. Common femoral, proximal SFA and profunda femoris are effectively in a groin, I wouldn't know how to tourniquet them.
Also, you're blessed to have one tough gal for a wife, Tom.

[tcRenegade]

Appendix carry is natural for some of us, holstered or not. Because someone else is scared, or uncomfortable carrying this way doesn't make it any more unsafe than any other form of carry!

[justintime]

Very recently in san antonio a cop shot himself in the femoral from the draw and died. Running aiwb