Jammer Six
New member
Angles don't dance.
Body armor for instructors
- Thread starter Doc Maker
- Start date
- Status
Glenn,
I agree that instructors might have more chance of being hit due to increased exposure. Theoretically. But exactly what is "the risk"?
If one person gets shot in a training environment in a year (and no one as yet has stated empirically that the incidence is even as high as one), is it worth it to equip every firearms instructor in the country with a vest?
I know there was a fatality in 2010 after an AD in St. Joseph, MO, but don't have any details except it was during a break.
In 2010 in Calif. a cop was clearing his .40. It went off, the round hit a concrete table, and another officer got hit in the leg, had and face. Vest wouldn't have helped.
In 2001 a Providence PD cop shot and killed another during a force on force exercise. Somehow live ammo got involved. Not a typical range training session.
I did manage to find one case where a cop in Milford, CT, was saved by his vest from a shot fired by another officer during a training accident. Not sure when it happened.
That's all the "data" I can find. Please share if anyone has some.
I agree that instructors might have more chance of being hit due to increased exposure. Theoretically. But exactly what is "the risk"?
If one person gets shot in a training environment in a year (and no one as yet has stated empirically that the incidence is even as high as one), is it worth it to equip every firearms instructor in the country with a vest?
I know there was a fatality in 2010 after an AD in St. Joseph, MO, but don't have any details except it was during a break.
In 2010 in Calif. a cop was clearing his .40. It went off, the round hit a concrete table, and another officer got hit in the leg, had and face. Vest wouldn't have helped.
In 2001 a Providence PD cop shot and killed another during a force on force exercise. Somehow live ammo got involved. Not a typical range training session.
I did manage to find one case where a cop in Milford, CT, was saved by his vest from a shot fired by another officer during a training accident. Not sure when it happened.
That's all the "data" I can find. Please share if anyone has some.
Moxie,
Having had a couple of idiots discharge weapons while I was in front of the firing line changing a target and having been struck by the impact splatter from one of those, I don't find any need to wait for any sort of accident uptick to justify reducing risks still further now. Indeed, a key to safety is that it be routinely reviewed and periodically revised and updated to improve it. My own club does that every year, and it has resulted in some rule changes. Nobody had to get hurt for this to be considered prudent.
Moreover, I think most shooters are well aware of how adverse publicity affects gun ownership. For that reason I expect accidents that don't require immediate medical attention are often unreported and that we don't know how many there are or what the exact risk is.
Jammer Six,
The standard formula for risk equivalence is to take the risk and multiply it by the percent of your lifetime you spend exposed to it. That's where the moral equivalence between instructor and student falls apart.
Suppose, for example, a civilian student takes a class with an instructor who teaches 100 classes during his teaching career (just to pick some numbers to work with). In that instance the instructor has 100 times greater lifetime exposure to the chance he might be accidentally shot by a student during class than any individual student in one of his classes has, assuming no repeats. (You have to work with lifetime exposures because each of us only gets one lifetime, and it is that lifetime that a worst case accident would terminate.) Thus, if one of this instructor's classes were, say, 10 students and 18.5 hours and the instructor wanted to enforce exact risk mitigation equivalence, he would have each student wear the vest for 10 minutes of the class time while he wore it the rest of the time. That would give him 100 times more wear than each student got, thus more perfectly reflecting his lifetime risk of being shot during class. That actually might be a fun classroom exercise, just to let people know what police have to put up with, but you'd face having to wash the thing more frequently.
Having had a couple of idiots discharge weapons while I was in front of the firing line changing a target and having been struck by the impact splatter from one of those, I don't find any need to wait for any sort of accident uptick to justify reducing risks still further now. Indeed, a key to safety is that it be routinely reviewed and periodically revised and updated to improve it. My own club does that every year, and it has resulted in some rule changes. Nobody had to get hurt for this to be considered prudent.
Moreover, I think most shooters are well aware of how adverse publicity affects gun ownership. For that reason I expect accidents that don't require immediate medical attention are often unreported and that we don't know how many there are or what the exact risk is.
Jammer Six,
The standard formula for risk equivalence is to take the risk and multiply it by the percent of your lifetime you spend exposed to it. That's where the moral equivalence between instructor and student falls apart.
Suppose, for example, a civilian student takes a class with an instructor who teaches 100 classes during his teaching career (just to pick some numbers to work with). In that instance the instructor has 100 times greater lifetime exposure to the chance he might be accidentally shot by a student during class than any individual student in one of his classes has, assuming no repeats. (You have to work with lifetime exposures because each of us only gets one lifetime, and it is that lifetime that a worst case accident would terminate.) Thus, if one of this instructor's classes were, say, 10 students and 18.5 hours and the instructor wanted to enforce exact risk mitigation equivalence, he would have each student wear the vest for 10 minutes of the class time while he wore it the rest of the time. That would give him 100 times more wear than each student got, thus more perfectly reflecting his lifetime risk of being shot during class. That actually might be a fun classroom exercise, just to let people know what police have to put up with, but you'd face having to wash the thing more frequently.
Last edited:
Jammer Six
New member
Unclenick, thanks for the answer, but I don't understand it-- probably because I don't understand statistics.
"One half of one percent of all humans ever born is still alive. Therefore I have a one half of one percent chance of living forever."
Your explanation reminded me of that, but that part's a joke.
What I don't see is how statistical equivalence translates into moral equivalence, because they measure very different things. It sounds to me like trying to measure degrees, minutes and seconds of water.
"One half of one percent of all humans ever born is still alive. Therefore I have a one half of one percent chance of living forever."
Your explanation reminded me of that, but that part's a joke.
What I don't see is how statistical equivalence translates into moral equivalence, because they measure very different things. It sounds to me like trying to measure degrees, minutes and seconds of water.
I'm a little flummoxed at the notion that it could somehow be immoral to put a vest on.
Hot? Cumbersome? Over the top? Perhaps all of those things. But immoral?
Not hitting the rolleyes smiley here, but also truly taken aback at the ... serious disconnect.
Last week I climbed into a car with a guy who grew up in an era where nobody ever donned a seat belt. I pulled my seat belt on as I got in. He didn't. Should I have taken mine back off again, lest he think I was treating him immorally because I wore a seat belt while he did not?
pax
Hot? Cumbersome? Over the top? Perhaps all of those things. But immoral?
Not hitting the rolleyes smiley here, but also truly taken aback at the ... serious disconnect.
Last week I climbed into a car with a guy who grew up in an era where nobody ever donned a seat belt. I pulled my seat belt on as I got in. He didn't. Should I have taken mine back off again, lest he think I was treating him immorally because I wore a seat belt while he did not?
pax
Jammer Six
New member
Pax, your friend had a seatbelt available.
If you provide a vest for every one of your students and your friend is your responsibility and under your instruction during your ride, then the analogy works.
I know how you feel about watching the disconnect.
P.S. I had a thought about this late last night as I was falling asleep. I had a seatbelt analogy worked out involving a car with just a seatbelt for the driver, but then I typed it in here, read it, and it didn't make any sense.
If you provide a vest for every one of your students and your friend is your responsibility and under your instruction during your ride, then the analogy works.
I know how you feel about watching the disconnect.
P.S. I had a thought about this late last night as I was falling asleep. I had a seatbelt analogy worked out involving a car with just a seatbelt for the driver, but then I typed it in here, read it, and it didn't make any sense.
Last edited:
Jammer Six
New member
In my experience, minimum equipment lists beyond a baseball cap, a holster and a spare mag impact sales.
HALLAUSTIN
New member
While we cant take all the risk out of life, a little extra insurance never hurt. If I can cover a good but of my vital bodyparts with a vest AND own said vest... Then I feel it is silly not to wear one. Even if the chances are 1 in 1000, no one wants to be that one.
Jammer Six,
My underlying assumption was that your moral equivalence related to leveling the playing field so as to give everyone an equal chance at surviving a potentially life terminating accident. If that is not what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and you can ignore what I said, though, like Pax, I am curious then, to know what the moral issue was. But if I was right and that was what you meant, then I can try to explain better:
In the example I gave, you have an instructor who will teach 100 classes. Let's say he fills each class with 10 students. If we assume none of the students repeats the class, then he will ultimately teach 1000 students.
Now let us postulate, for the sake of argument, that there will be one potentially hazardous accident in just one of those 100 classes, but we don't know in advance which of the 100 classes it will occur in. On that occasion, 10 of the 1000 students and the instructor will be present, but all 1000 students will not be present. So, if you are one of this instructor's 1000 future students, by virtue of the fact you only take one of the 100 classes, you have had an extra roll of the immunity dice that the instructor does not get. That roll is the extra 99 chances in 100 of not happening to be present in the particular fateful class. The instructor has to be there, that's why he has 100 times greater chance of being present when the accident rolls around. Therefore, in his teaching career, he has 100 times more chance of needing the vest than any particular one of his 1000 future students does.
This is same reason police officers wear vests and most civilians don't. It's not that civilians are never subjected to the risk of being shot. It's that the police have much more frequently repeated exposure to that risk than the average civilian does.
My underlying assumption was that your moral equivalence related to leveling the playing field so as to give everyone an equal chance at surviving a potentially life terminating accident. If that is not what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and you can ignore what I said, though, like Pax, I am curious then, to know what the moral issue was. But if I was right and that was what you meant, then I can try to explain better:
In the example I gave, you have an instructor who will teach 100 classes. Let's say he fills each class with 10 students. If we assume none of the students repeats the class, then he will ultimately teach 1000 students.
Now let us postulate, for the sake of argument, that there will be one potentially hazardous accident in just one of those 100 classes, but we don't know in advance which of the 100 classes it will occur in. On that occasion, 10 of the 1000 students and the instructor will be present, but all 1000 students will not be present. So, if you are one of this instructor's 1000 future students, by virtue of the fact you only take one of the 100 classes, you have had an extra roll of the immunity dice that the instructor does not get. That roll is the extra 99 chances in 100 of not happening to be present in the particular fateful class. The instructor has to be there, that's why he has 100 times greater chance of being present when the accident rolls around. Therefore, in his teaching career, he has 100 times more chance of needing the vest than any particular one of his 1000 future students does.
This is same reason police officers wear vests and most civilians don't. It's not that civilians are never subjected to the risk of being shot. It's that the police have much more frequently repeated exposure to that risk than the average civilian does.
Last edited:
I call it a draw
No one is going to win this argument...................
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate.
- Francis Bacon
No one is going to win this argument...................
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate.
- Francis Bacon
I’d call it a draw due to each considering the problem in different "social" reference frames.
Unclenick is correct from the standpoint of considering statistical probability over the time frame of the course being offered, but a statistical standpoint of considering each class as a separate frame would change things in favor of Jammer Six’s position.
However, Each standpoint can only reach a moral conclusion by defining fairness in relation to their chosen frame and equating it to moral justification. This is a subjective judgment. Therefore, neither "truth" can be defined as objective. Allowing both to be considered "true", or choosing one over the other, leads to situational ethics, imo.
An easy way to resolve the two is to dispense with the notion of fairness, and allow each of the participants to choose the level of protection they desire, bounded by their ability to acquire it. It then becomes morally wrong for any participant to forbid or require anyone else to wear a vest. (this excludes integration of private property rights and other mutual agreements on conditions … just for simplicity’s sake
).
It also dispenses with the notion of truth as an application to a situation. Truth is only defined as a formula for correct operation. Variables in the formula exist to describe various situations. So …. Resultants are applications of the formula created by substitutions of variables, and nothing more.
And each person’s "correct" perception of truth can be different, while preserving the notion of objective truth. The Devil is in the details, and God is in the formula, so to speak.
Long story short, If you want to wear it and can … it’s perfectly ok to do so, a neutral act. If someone else wants to wear it and can’t, providing for them to do so … would be a good act.
jmo…
Unclenick is correct from the standpoint of considering statistical probability over the time frame of the course being offered, but a statistical standpoint of considering each class as a separate frame would change things in favor of Jammer Six’s position.
However, Each standpoint can only reach a moral conclusion by defining fairness in relation to their chosen frame and equating it to moral justification. This is a subjective judgment. Therefore, neither "truth" can be defined as objective. Allowing both to be considered "true", or choosing one over the other, leads to situational ethics, imo.
An easy way to resolve the two is to dispense with the notion of fairness, and allow each of the participants to choose the level of protection they desire, bounded by their ability to acquire it. It then becomes morally wrong for any participant to forbid or require anyone else to wear a vest. (this excludes integration of private property rights and other mutual agreements on conditions … just for simplicity’s sake
). It also dispenses with the notion of truth as an application to a situation. Truth is only defined as a formula for correct operation. Variables in the formula exist to describe various situations. So …. Resultants are applications of the formula created by substitutions of variables, and nothing more.
And each person’s "correct" perception of truth can be different, while preserving the notion of objective truth. The Devil is in the details, and God is in the formula, so to speak.
Long story short, If you want to wear it and can … it’s perfectly ok to do so, a neutral act. If someone else wants to wear it and can’t, providing for them to do so … would be a good act.
jmo…
bamaranger
New member
like it
Were I to be on an academy or commercial firing line, , or an RSO at a match, I'd wear that rascal in a heartbeat.
At an FAQ within the district, small group, etc, I'd go with the usual concealed armor.
Were I to be on an academy or commercial firing line, , or an RSO at a match, I'd wear that rascal in a heartbeat.
At an FAQ within the district, small group, etc, I'd go with the usual concealed armor.
Point Blank sent me a confirmation email today for a Vision concealable, FI carrier and a Paraclete (same company now) RMV w/lv.IV plates. Estimated ship date 7/3. I'll post pics when the vests arrive.
I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion that wearing at the range, while off work, is situational and at the wearers discretion.
Censorship is still weak...
I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion that wearing at the range, while off work, is situational and at the wearers discretion.
Censorship is still weak...
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Cease and desist calling an instructor incompetent because of this choice.
Nice rig, Doc.
On that I'm closing this as we've been down the insult road before and we aren't doing that again.
Nice rig, Doc.
On that I'm closing this as we've been down the insult road before and we aren't doing that again.
- Status