IDPA - appendix carry?

[miller_man]

Think of the average IDPA participant.

Think of the average IDPA SO/RO.

Imagine, after all this time, IDPA approves AIWB for those people.

Now imagine the club or the organization being sued after an injury/death.

“What’s the average age and experience of IDPA competitors? Do you allow those competitors to use modified guns with lightened triggers? How long was appendix carry prohibited by IDPA/your club? Does your club conduct personalized inspections of equipment or reholstering techniques? Did you foresee the potential for injury with inexperienced shooters placing modified competition guns down the front of their pants? Was that foreseeable injury the reason for the historical prohibition on appendix carry? Do you understand the risk of fatal or serious injury to be higher or lower as compared to carrying a pistol at or behind the hip? No further questions.”

You might think, but isn’t shooting an inherently risky activity? Don’t people sign waivers? Sure, those are standard practices for any risky behavior. But a club or organization for dangerous activity can expect litigation if they suddenly permit the participants to engage in a behavior that was deemed “too dangerous to allow” for several decades. It would be like a theme park allowing people to forgo using restraints on a rollercoaster, or a private racetrack allowing competitors to stop using safety equipment, race on worn tires, or decorate the track surface with debris or oil.

When a club or organization can no longer afford its insurance, it stops holding matches.

I see possible merit to this argument - but at the same time, if we are going to run matches based on possible litigation - better just keep the guns unloaded and in the holster. Also, these matches are sometimes held at ranges that already allow shooting from aiwb, either in USPSA or just the range itself.

[Wendell]

@Wendell, I think this question is good to keep discussing. You make some valid points, and I understand why you feel this way. However, how many lethal accidents involving a 9 year old kid shooting IDPA or USPSA do you think it would take for us to lose our sport?

We must live in different worlds. You keep talking about accidents involving 9 year-old USPSA (or IPSC, or IDPA) competitors being a basis for requiring all competitors - including adults - to take some kind of safety course, and while I do read the papers, and I do read the internet forums, and I do participate in practical shooting, I must have missed all the accounts about actual cases that might support your position. Offhand, I do recall hearing about one adult IPSC competitor in British Columbia who shot himself fatally during an IPSC match, one adult IPSC competitor in New Brunswick who shot himself in the thumb during an IPSC match, and one adult IPSC competitor in Nova Scotia who suffered a minor blast injury after he unintentionally caused a primer to contact an extractor during an IPSC match. All three of those adults - being located in Canada - had, before competing in IPSC - successfully completed IPSC Canada's mandatory two-day safety course known as the 'Black Badge'.

[BigT]

We will differ on this. Of course, it's subjective to judge whether someone has their shit together. However, a bullet hole is not subjective.

Having dealt with enough SO's trying too tell me "you almost" when I did something safe, but outside his or her frame or reference, I am a fan of objective, and applying the rule books as written not interpenetrated.

[Clusterfrack]

I regret using the 9yr old as an example because it weakened rather than strengthened my argument. The younger shooters were the first ones I thought of because as a parent, I'd really hate for something bad to happen to a kid--especially when I'm right there to see it. We are setting the standard for how they will treat firearms for the rest of their lives, and how they will teach their own kids as well. Will it be to view guns as basketballs or footballs? Or as lethal weapons requiring the highest level of respect? Will safety rules be annoyances that get in the way of winning? Or important principles that make good sense outside of a match?

Fortunately, USPSA and IDPA have remained relatively free of serious accidents. That doesn't mean we can't do things better. My level of participation in USPSA is very high, and I don't view it as a casual activity. It's a serious sport involving guns that shoot real bullets, and it's disturbing when people (of all ages) show up without any clue about the how and why of our safety procedures.

I'm not ok with casual ad hoc coaching by whoever happens to be there, and it wouldn't take much to solve the problem. See my idea below for a solution. I don't hold much hope of that happening, so when the new shooters are up, you'll find me:

-Not ROing unless there's no one else with experience
-Standing well away from the edges of the safe angle
-Leaving the bay when certain shooters are on deck
-Not shooting IDPA

Here's what I've been talking about with some people for a possible USPSA Indoc course: New shooters shoot their first match for no score. First stage is shot by dryfire, with a laser boresight inserted so the shooter and coach can see where the muzzle is pointed. Common safety issues are demonstrated, and everyone will learn how to fall safely with a loaded gun. Demonstrations and live fire exercises on stages can focus on choke points like reloads during support-side movement, and retreating safely. The class would be fun, and would build confidence--especially in shooters new to firearms.

We must live in different worlds. You keep talking about accidents involving 9 year-old USPSA (or IPSC, or IDPA) competitors being a basis for requiring all competitors - including adults - to take some kind of safety course, and while I do read the papers, and I do read the internet forums, and I do participate in practical shooting, I must have missed all the accounts about actual cases that might support your position. Offhand, I do recall hearing about one adult IPSC competitor in British Columbia who shot himself fatally during an IPSC match, one adult IPSC competitor in New Brunswick who shot himself in the thumb during an IPSC match, and one adult IPSC competitor in Nova Scotia who suffered a minor blast injury after he unintentionally caused a primer to contact an extractor during an IPSC match. All three of those adults - being located in Canada - had, before competing in IPSC - successfully completed IPSC Canada's mandatory two-day safety course known as the 'Black Badge'.

[orionz06]

Think of the average IDPA participant.

Think of the average IDPA SO/RO.

Imagine, after all this time, IDPA approves AIWB for those people.

Now imagine the club or the organization being sued after an injury/death.

“What’s the average age and experience of IDPA competitors? Do you allow those competitors to use modified guns with lightened triggers? How long was appendix carry prohibited by IDPA/your club? Does your club conduct personalized inspections of equipment or reholstering techniques? Did you foresee the potential for injury with inexperienced shooters placing modified competition guns down the front of their pants? Was that foreseeable injury the reason for the historical prohibition on appendix carry? Do you understand the risk of fatal or serious injury to be higher or lower as compared to carrying a pistol at or behind the hip? No further questions.”

You might think, but isn’t shooting an inherently risky activity? Don’t people sign waivers? Sure, those are standard practices for any risky behavior. But a club or organization for dangerous activity can expect litigation if they suddenly permit the participants to engage in a behavior that was deemed “too dangerous to allow” for several decades. It would be like a theme park allowing people to forgo using restraints on a rollercoaster, or a private racetrack allowing competitors to stop using safety equipment, race on worn tires, or decorate the track surface with debris or oil.

When a club or organization can no longer afford its insurance, it stops holding matches.

This line of thinking could easily be used to not allow anyone to shoot.

[Clusterfrack]

Having dealt with enough SO's trying too tell me "you almost" when I did something safe, but outside his or her frame or reference, I am a fan of objective, and applying the rule books as written not interpenetrated.

Mostly agree. At least in USPSA, a match isn't the time or place for coaching, unless the shooter asks for help. E.g. the "helpful" RO telling me how close my right-to-left reload was to the safe angle. Like I didn't know how close it was, and didn't rehearse the reload 20 times during the walkthrough and visualization. Some ROs love to make it seem like they could have DQed you, but were doing you a BIG favor somehow by letting it slide. Either DQ or be quiet.

On the other hand, if it's a major safety issue, I think it's good for the RO or anyone else to do what they think is best. The worse thing is that the shooter will get a reshoot. I've grabbed shooters a few times as an RO because they were doing something dangerous even though they didn't DQ. Just offer them a reshoot, no harm done.

[JRV]

This line of thinking could easily be used to not allow anyone to shoot.

I was using a hypothetical argument to make a point about why IDPA or IDPA clubs may have institutional inertia preventing AIWB carry in a sport that’s generally suited for (and marketed at) newer shooters and concealed carriers. No need to make a straw man out of an exaggerated position.

Shooting is a dangerous activity, and all sanctioned sporting bodies have a set of rules aimed at maximizing safety for participants and minimizing potential legal liability. The same goes for football clubs, soccer clubs, rugby clubs, and any other sport. There are long-standing norms for conduct and equipment, codified into safety rules, that allow the organizing bodies and participating clubs to maintain affordable insurance for those activities.

Equipment and techniques can evolve over time around gaps in rules that never intended to address a certain type of conduct (e.g. AIWB carry rigs in USPSA Limited). Again, that’s a totally different concern for an organization than actively permitting a once-prohibited behavior that almost certainly increases the risk of serious injury to the participant in the event of a foul-up.

[Zincwarrior]

Mostly agree. At least in USPSA, a match isn't the time or place for coaching, unless the shooter asks for help. E.g. the "helpful" RO telling me how close my right-to-left reload was to the safe angle. Like I didn't know how close it was, and didn't rehearse the reload 20 times during the walkthrough and visualization. Some ROs love to make it seem like they could have DQed you, but were doing you a BIG favor somehow by letting it slide. Either DQ or be quiet.

On the other hand, if it's a major safety issue, I think it's good for the RO or anyone else to do what they think is best. The worse thing is that the shooter will get a reshoot. I've grabbed shooters a few times as an RO because they were doing something dangerous even though they didn't DQ. Just offer them a reshoot, no harm done.

I think we have a similar position, you may just be further on the bell curve than I on the amount of class time needed before hand.

A question should be asked maybe, how much of this is an actual issue? I've never seen anyone actually shooting appendix in a USPSA match. In IDPA the crowd tends to be more normal, with bigger waistlines that make appendix carry less desired. Is this a big thing?

[Jim Watson]

I've never seen anyone actually shooting appendix in a USPSA match.

I have seen it once.
At least it was what the practitioner called "appendix." It was anatomically more nearly a navel carry, just to the right of center.
There was a stage with a start at 45 deg left of the bay meridian, call it 135 deg around on the plane. So he was past the 180 the moment he grabbed the gun. His buddy the RO/MD did not find this a problem. So I was careful where I stood.

This was a common sight in CAS when I dressed for that. It is very common to wear the second gun in a cross draw holster. You are supposed to shift your stance to draw it so the gun comes out in front of a 170 (not 180) deg line. What is seen is a slight waggle of the butt and the gun whipped right out.


Is it time to revive KTSG and quit telling IDPA what it is doing wrong?

[Wendell]

In the United States, many states do not require completion of a safety course; some do, but many do not. Some sports do not require completion of a safety course; some do, but many do not.

In Canada, per the Firearms Act, to obtain a handgun, the government has decided that an individual must take two safety courses (CFSC & CRFSC) before being eligible for a (restricted-endorsed PAL) license to possess a handgun. In Canada, per the Firearms Act, most shooting clubs require that applicants, before joining, first complete another club-level safety course. The CFSC, CRFSC, and the club-level course are all required by law. In Canada, IPSC Canada has decided that the completion of a Black Badge course is necessary for participation in level 2 or higher matches; the Black Badge, I think, is regarded as necessary to prevent unsafe gun-handling and to protect the sport. For the record, I do like the Black Badge course, and I do find it valuable for most participants, but there's no doubt that the requirement for a Black Badge (a two-day course that costs money, fills up quickly, and is offered only infrequently) also acts as a real barrier to participation.

I shoot at matches where competitors were not required to first complete a safety course, and I shoot at matches where competitors were required to first complete several safety courses, and the truth is this: comparing the two, while the 'safety briefs' tend to be a lot longer at American matches, I really don't see much difference in the gun-handling.