Safety controversy

Explaining this away as "stress inoculation" doesn't ring true with me, either. If that is what it was, why was there one person downrange, and why did he need to be holding a camera. I am an avid amateur photographer, and cameras require some focus and concentration. If this was a stress inoculation exercise, there is no reason to distract the downrange fellow by putting a camera in his hand and expecting him to get quality photographs.

While it is true that "true safety doesn't exist" in the sense that nothing is risk free, prudent people assess and manage risk. Some risks are within your control and some are not. Putting a distracted person beside a target in a live fire accident is the former.

The analogy to automobile traffic is utterly absurd.

I find it rather arrogant of him to try to turn the situation into a commercial with that macho pseudo-challenge at the end.
 
WOW... JUST WOW!!!:barf:
If it were stress inoculation they would have one person doing jumping jacks beside each target! So only 2 students deserve this "inoculation"?
what about the possible "flyer" round? And a cameraman is a viable scenario participant for a shooting exercise?
I am thinking my practice while me and a few buddies passed a bottle of whiskey wasn't so unsafe after all. we were actually drinking so we knew we could hit our mark if we were attacked while partying so it was cool, Right?:eek:
Brent
 
I think too often people get caught up in the common misconceptions about what is and isnt safe. Unless you actively aim your weapon and another person, have it off safe, and ur finger on the trigger then your weapon isnt going to magically shoot anybody. Theres no such thing as an accidental discharge, and while as I said before I do think that a certain level of babying should be done at your average range with your average shooters, why would anybody pay the thousands of dollars to be trained to perform in a tactical environment only to be treated like children
 
I change the batteries in my smoke detectors. I have a kitchen fire extinguisher. I wear my seatbelt. I don't ride a motorcycle. It would seem that qualifies me to comment per Mr. Yeager's rules.

Not much in the way of cohesive logic in the video response. A few really glaring logic flaws.

1. The fact that unavoidable safety risks exist in our daily lives is not justification for taking unnecessary risks or imposing unnecessary risks on others.

2. The fact that a person chooses to take risks in one area of his life does not automatically justify his taking unnecessary risks in other activities.

3. The fact that a person chooses to take risks in one or more area of his life does not disqualify him from being able assess or deplore unnecessary risks when he sees them.

4. The idea that students must have persons downrange while firing or they will be unable to fire with persons in front of the gun in a self-defense situation is demonstrably false. Clearly people can fire in SD scenarios with persons forward of the muzzle even if they never trained with people downrange.

The bottom line is that this school sees a need to stand out. Apparently they don't feel they can do it by any other means than controversy.

The plug at the end of the video would have been amusing except for the fact that it made me wonder what sort of potential student that kind of challenge appeals to. Not pleasant to think of folks like that with guns...

A couple more interesting points.

1. Apparently things were getting a little too hot--Mr. Yeager posted some responses and then disabled further text commenting on the rebuttal video.

2. The original training video was removed (although it appears that it has been reposted by a different person). The fact that they removed it suggests that perhaps they're not quite as proud of it as the rebuttal video would have us believe.
 
Double Naught Spy wrote:
Yeager does make a very convincing argument for why I will never take training with his company.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.
 
"Stress inoculation" indeed---what a load of drivel and "in theory" drivel indeed.

I watched the "response" video and the only thing I agree with what the man said started at the 8 minute mark when he was talking about "warriors"---he had that part right.
Do to our physical makeup and the genetic differences in our individual NERVOUS SYSTEMS we are not all warriors.

The armed forces spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per soldier trying to find the "warriors" that he speaks of, " the nine out of a hundred" and "the one out of a hundred" ---- These are those that earn the title Navy Seal and such and these are the men that take the shots on multiple pirates that are holding hostages at gunpoint...all while bobbing up and down on the high seas----REAL warriors that have trained to the point of exhaustion many times in situations that would make, yes 90% of use scream like little girls and run home to mommy.

At Tactical Response, we aren't looking for the 10 or the 80 but if your one of the 9 or 1, come see us.

What a load of crap....every wannabe Rambo thinks they are one of the few.... LOL give me a break.
Just how does this great trainer discern WHO is one of these few?
Like I said, the US Government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to sort this out....but the guys that show up to his class are put in a situation were they have a camera man in front of them.....beyond stupid.

How you react in a given situation has as much to do with your genetic makeup, YOUR nervous system, as it has to do with training....and in this case, very questionable training.

I don't know how long this tacticool course is and how much "stress inoculation" :rolleyes: students are exposed to.
Sounds like a sales pitch for all the Rambo wanabees out there.

Just stupid.
 
No surprise here. Yeager's a clown, although I have to admit, he's been able to con quite a few people and develop a cult-like following.

Nobody takes this guy seriously and most of those who do probably don't know any better.

This isn't an attempt to flame the guy. But it goes back to the old "know the guy who's advice/training you're taking." Nobody who KNOWS the deal with this guy will be surprised at seeing the video(s).

Yeager does make a very convincing argument for why I will never take training with his company.
Click to expand...

There are a plenty of other reasons...if people only knew.
 
BOO YAAAA The hdogs won! I am the last response comment before he shut the option off and replied to me... "NO RULE WAS BROKEN..." My lily white hanky!
I grumble to know that this sum buck actually charges folks to take his WARRIOR COURSE! Paul Blart diploma and all!

Brent
 
Would anyone here participate in a training course that includes a 360 degree hot range? How about a 360 degree range plus multiple shooters?

I understand what everyone takes issue to is having one guy downrange while newb's are blastin away.

I've seen a lot of live fire drills involving multiple shooters (handguns, AR's...whatever) where there are shooters in front of you/around you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not itching to go stand by an IDPA target while someone else is shooting at it (nor do I really want to be the shooter in that scenario) but I can think of some instances where I'd like to experience working under non-traditional range conditions.

I'm not challenging that the video and video response were great ideas, just curious to see how many would participate in non-standard training drills with no range boundaries.
 
I'm not challenging that the video and video response were great ideas, just curious to see how many would participate in non-standard training drills with no range boundaries.
Click to expand...


With Navy Seals and Airborne Rangers....those PROVEN to have the skills and mindset that SHOULD go with "non-standard" training?? Yes, I would participate and take a chance.

With Joe or Jane " call me Rambo " Lunchbucket? NO freakin' way.....I value my life a little more than that.

But, hey, if your one of the 9 or 1 ( in your mind anyway) give me a call!! LMAO!!
 
And if this guy really enjoys being shot at that much, he should to go to the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan! I am sure he (or his widow) would get a lot more money for those pictures than of a bunch of people taking a CCW class!

Scott
Click to expand...

HE HAS!!! You????
 
That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they necessarily even have insurance... :confused:

With Navy Seals and Airborne Rangers....those PROVEN to have the skills and mindset that SHOULD go with "non-standard" training?? Yes, I would participate and take a chance.

With Joe or Jane " call me Rambo " Lunchbucket? NO freakin' way.....I value my life a little more than that.
Click to expand...

After seeing what fellow students unfamiliar to me, some of whom were experienced, could do wrong in standard training, I would not attempt to do non-standard training with strangers. The concern isn't for fear that they are Rambo types or anything that outrageous (although that is hugely possible), but simply that they are not up to the skills necessary to accomplish the task in a safe and controlled manner.
Explaining this away as "stress inoculation" doesn't ring true with me, either.

If that is what it was, why was there one person downrange, and why did he need to be holding a camera.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood. It wasn't the cameraman getting stress inoculated, but the students. Those students are being inoculated against performance anxiety caused by camera shyness.:rolleyes:
 
Since statute of limitation isn't an issue now...
I have never been in "the service" Nor been "deployed" over seas but I have been faced off with muzzles and had lead slung at me as well as slung back! I have never considered having lead slung my way as I volunteer to take pics nor been willing to involve an unarmed participant in shooting drills..
No way No How will this ever be deemed anything but blatant unsafe gun handling! At least on TFL... maybe the WWW.geta lifeX.com forum sees it as fine but that is a gob of WARRIOR TRAINEES! None of the warriors I know realize they are warriors!
Brent
 
That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they necessarily even have insurance...
Click to expand...

Surely you jest?

Can anyone verify please? Is TACTICAL RESPONSE a company who makes you sign a "participate in our training at your own risk" disclaimer?
 
he compares being downrange to driving a car on the highway or riding w/o a motorcyle helmet.
Click to expand...

Wagonman,

First, if you think about it, every time a car drives past you it's like a 16 inch gun shell whizzed by. And if it struck you head on it would be just a huge impact (and in fact lots are killed just that way.) And every car 'misses' you by just a few feet. So there is some relevance to what he said.

Plus have you heard complaints about trick shooters that would shoot cigarettes or such out of people’s mouths?

Now with that being said, yes it’s a dangerous practice. Yes it’s not something I’d be eager to do. Yes someone can get shot. But, if the shooters are experienced and they volunteer to go, well it’s up to them.

Not my cup of tea, but did you know in WW2 they had GIs in foxholes while training and they would fire enemy guns over their heads so they could hear the report and recognize different weapons by the sound? Did you know we had GIs crawl under wire while machineguns fired real bullets over their heads, and if you stuck your head up it would be blown off?

Like I said, it's not my cup of tea but if others want that level of training, well it's their arse.
 
That looked like a really bad idea to me, certainly an unneccesary risk.

First, if you think about it, every time a car drives past you it's like a 16 inch gun shell whizzed by. And if it struck you head on it would be just a huge impact (and in fact lots are killed just that way.) And every car 'misses' you by just a few feet. So there is some relevance to what he said.
Click to expand...

The point being, people die when things go wrong. Same thing on the range. There's a reason we don't use facing rows of targets being shot at by facing rows of shooters.

No other conclusion to be made other than it was a stupid mistake that should not be repeated.
 
Surely you jest?

Can anyone verify please? Is TACTICAL RESPONSE a company who makes you sign a "participate in our training at your own risk" disclaimer?
Click to expand...

You mean there are ranges and training schools that don't have a Hold Harmless/You No Sue Me form? Because every gun club, every range, every training school, every ccw class from the NRA Range @ NRAHQ to the CCW classes (CA, Utah) I took in CA, to the ranges I attended for local Combat Pistol Matches, have all had YOU NO SUE forms.

Below is a Form For AN NRA Event Second Page Has A Medical Release and a Generic Liability Release included at the bottom of the form.

http://www.nrahq.org/compete/rules_images/09-ORD-Reg-Rel.pdf

Downrange Photoman Speaks Out.
http://blog.yeagerscorner.com/2009/06/21/interview-with-the-downrange-photographer.aspx
 
JohnKSa said:
2. The original training video was removed (although it appears that it has been reposted by a different person). The fact that they removed it suggests that perhaps they're not quite as proud of it as the rebuttal video would have us believe.
Click to expand...

The original video was not taken by TR nor authorized by them; they did not even have a copy before it was posted online.

(Sheesh, now it looks as if I'm defending 'em. I'm not. I just have an aversion to incorrect data.)

pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top