AIWB now legal in all divisions?

[Eyesquared]

Have you ever seen a parent tell little Johnny “no” because the parent wants what they want and thinks that supersedes the kid’s input? I have.

With paternalism you have to be VERY careful that it actually IS in their best interest and not selfish self-interest...

Or call a spade a spade.

You can make that argument about the board bringing this rules change to a vote and implementing it without seeking input from the membership.

[Clusterfrack]

I just spent $70 on magnets.

[Clusterfrack]

Thus USPSA is only for the chosen? That's what I'm getting out this conversation. All those who don't reach a certain level cannot be part of the what level of matches? Having some of the losers at the matches you compete in is a horror?

I suppose you could have a set of matches for only those above XY or Z. Would that suffice? Is that model economically viable? Does the local club match offend you? Don't go to them.

I love having new shooters join USPSA. I’m mentoring one currently. However, I want USPSA to remain a sport, where the competition is first and foremost. I don’t want USPSA to become a business, or just an activity that people like to attend. It is a sport, and should be governed with openness, fairness, stability, and competitive equity as guiding principles. If we can grow the sport without compromising that core, I’m good with that.

[olstyn]

Sorry you feel this way. I'd suggest listening to the podcast with Mason. They addressed that "attitude" probably better than I can.

I'm partway through it, but I rather doubt it's going to change my mind about your attitude. The number of times one of them (sorry, I lost track of which voice belongs to which name) said "I don't mean to sound like a dick, but" is pretty indicative of the same attitude, and I don't view the arguments they're making as terribly persuasive. Yeah, matches already fill up. That's not a reason to be against more participation, it's a reason to encourage more clubs to host matches, thus increasing capacity.

[cheby]

I'm partway through it, but I rather doubt it's going to change my mind about your attitude. The number of times one of them (sorry, I lost track of which voice belongs to which name) said "I don't mean to sound like a dick, but" is pretty indicative of the same attitude, and I don't view the arguments they're making as terribly persuasive. Yeah, matches already fill up. That's not a reason to be against more participation, it's a reason to encourage more clubs to host matches, thus increasing capacity.

You could also read the post right before yours. It may be more pleasing. However, still "facts don't care about your feelings" B. Shapiro

[JCN]

You can make that argument about the board bringing this rules change to a vote and implementing it without seeking input from the membership.

I guess. But the board didn’t say it was something that was better for the current membership.

Part of the goal of a board is to keep the organization healthy for the future and even if it’s not popular for what people want right now, it might still be best for the organization.

But that’s different than telling the current members that it’s the best for them.

In a sport like this, the people who bitch the loudest... are the most invested and will just deal with it.

[YVK]

I just spent $70 on magnets.

You're getting slow. Mine are halfway here.

I also hit four sub-second reloads yesterday after moving mag pouches forward. That pretty much never happens for me. Is 0.75 a new 1.0?

I'm partway through it, but I rather doubt it's going to change my mind about your attitude. The number of times one of them (sorry, I lost track of which voice belongs to which name) said "I don't mean to sound like a dick, but" is pretty indicative of the same attitude, and I don't view the arguments they're making as terribly persuasive.

I thought that some stuff they said made sense.

I welcome new guests to my house but I am not going to change house rules to get more new guests in if my house rules are well established and fair.
Speculatively, the changes are there to bring more new people in but if a dude didn't join before simply 'cause he couldn't compete from junk carry, then he may have not tried to understand what this sport was about.

I think that those two points from podcast at least have merits, if not fair.

Another absolutely spot on thing was pointing out that USPSA's reasoning for flashlights and part of reasoning for appendix position - that part where they said it was about letting people compete with their carry setups out of their carry rigs - sounded less than persuasive. Sure, we let you hang the WMLs because that's how you carry, sure we let you shoot from AIWB because how you carry but no, you still have to download you carry mags to 10 even though you don't carry that way. Because??? Lack of consistency raises fair questions about truthfulness of explanation.



Aaand, as a comic relief, somebody, who we will not name, excitedly put a flashlight on his new Walther PDP, went to shoot a match with it, and ran said flashlight into a barrel or a barricade or something. Fortunately. RO didn't check if flashlight still met the "functioning" requirement after.

[olstyn]

Speculatively, the changes are there to bring more new people in but if a dude didn't join before simply 'cause he couldn't compete from junk carry, then he may have not tried to understand what this sport was about.

I think that those two points from podcast at least have merits, if not fair.

Another absolutely spot on thing was pointing out that USPSA's reasoning for flashlights and part of reasoning for appendix position - that part where they said it was about letting people compete with their carry setups out of their carry rigs - sounded less than persuasive. Sure, we let you hang the WMLs because that's how you carry, sure we let you shoot from AIWB because how you carry but no, you still have to download you carry mags to 10 even though you don't carry that way. Because??? Lack of consistency raises fair questions about truthfulness of explanation.

That's fair, and I don't disagree with the basic point, except in the case of rules that didn't seem to make sense to begin with. (I believe the holster position rules fell under that category.) Having now gotten through the whole podcast, I still generally dislike the elitist attitude of the three people in it, but their points about the potential impact of flashlights do make logical sense, apart from the reductio ad absurdum they got into about dead batteries and light/laser combos. I can see them being an advantage during suboptimal lighting conditions for sure.

I have also previously expressed concerns about rules consistency around the flashlight change in this very thread, but nobody had a good answer for the question I was asking. I'll restate it now: As far as I understand, the rules still say that holsters must fully protect the trigger. How can that work with a light-bearing holster? Lights are wider than trigger guards, so basically every light-bearing holster has space around the trigger guard, definitely enough for foreign objects, and in some cases, maybe even fingers, to get into. Based on that, it sounds to me like the rule change around lights makes the lights legal, but there won't be a way to actually run them because the holsters won't fit within the rules. Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding...

[GJM]

Yep, I whacked my Surefire on a barrel. Now I know what a girl experiences right after getting a boob job.

[YVK]

I have also previously expressed concerns about rules consistency around the flashlight change in this very thread, but nobody had a good answer for the question I was asking. I'll restate it now: As far as I understand, the rules still say that holsters must fully protect the trigger. How can that work with a light-bearing holster? Lights are wider than trigger guards, so basically every light-bearing holster has space around the trigger guard, definitely enough for foreign objects, and in some cases, maybe even fingers, to get into. Based on that, it sounds to me like the rule change around lights makes the lights legal, but there won't be a way to actually run them because the holsters won't fit within the rules. Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding...

I think this is one of the many unintended consequences that they simply have not thought through. I don't own a single WML-bearing AIWB holster for this very reason. Last I looked into this was maybe a couple of years ago and it seemed that newer WMLs allow for tighter holster to trigger guard fit than legacy Surefires. Still this is something I personally will never do unless they come up with a light that's narrower than the gun.

I don't have a good answer but I think that because USPSA runs cold ranges, and loading and holstering is effectively a supervised procedure, risk of adverse events on this particular account is low.