I think a downrange drill can be done safely.
I also think this video shows a downrange drill being done in a very unsafe manner.
We do live in a 360-degree world, and there might come a time when you need to fire a shot while a loved one is within a few feet of your intended impact point. There is value in stress innoculation, for most people. I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether a defensive shooter "needs" a downrange drill to be truly prepared (and thus whether it's a necessary risk or an unnecessary one), but I have no in-theory quarrel with those who teach it.
However, when a downrange drill is done, it should be done in a very cautious and controlled manner, with multiple safeguards. If you have the philosophy that the stress innoculation is important, then you need to provide it for your students in the safest possible manner. I do not think these guys did that.
Typically, what an instructor is trying to accomplish with a downrange drill is something some call "stress inoculation" and others call "emotional climate training." The goal is to allow the student to experience – in a safe environment – the full weight and magnitude of shooting near (but not at) an innocent human. Most responsible shooters are freaked out by that thought. Yet if & when the student uses a firearm for real in a defensive situation, it is entirely likely that someone they love and care about will be within feet (and possibly within mere inches) of the muzzle at the time they fire. If they are freaking out about the mere thought of firing near an innocent, they won't be able to make that shot when they need it, so the reasoning for the downrange drill is that if the student has already experienced and gotten over the extreme emotional "freak out" associated with needing to make a shot near but not at an innocent, they will be that much steadier under stress and that much more prepared to make that shot when it counts.
At the same time, those instructors who send students downrange during such drills (rather than going downrange themselves while students shoot) are typically trying to accomplish a similar stress inoculation goal: they want their students to experience, in a safe and controlled environment, what gunfire looks like from the front. Again, it is fully expected that any reasonable person will be disconcerted by both the idea and the actuality of having a gun fired in their general direction, even if it is not being fired at them. The reasoning here is that those who have experienced the emotional impact of such a situation but in a safe environment will be more prepared and better able to keep their cool under pressure if & when it happens in real life, and that they may recognize that they are being shot at somewhat sooner than someone who has never seen or experienced gunfire from the muzzle end. The goal has far less to do with anything macho than it does with simply getting over and past the extreme emotional reaction in training so that the student will be able to respond calmly and efficiently in real life.
By this point, whether you agree with the arguments or not, it should be clear why these goals cannot be accomplished with anything but live ammunition on a hot range.
Again, to be clear: I'm not saying these drills must be done and I'm sure not urging anyone to get out this weekend and run downrange! I'm just trying to articulate what instructors who do this type of drill are intending to accomplish when they do them.
Kathy
