View Full Version : Does Anyone Here Think This Is Safe...?
Just seeing if it's "me" or not.
https://www.facebook.com/237267769814095/photos/a.237275459813326.1073741828.237267769814095/274111269463078/?type=1
Taking some flak over this post.
https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/9299_274111269463078_742141973363402079_n.jpg?oh=1466ebbe568fd434f9d87105b6c5a0c5&oe=5478FBDD
I just don't think having reporters forward of the muzzle while promoting a gun safety program is very wise, or safe.
I am with you on this. To any nay sayer's, try standing in the same position as the reporters at a public range or a training class and see how quick you get your ass chewed out and are asked to leave.
At an indoor range nonetheless!
Ya agree, but also have to say cameramen are notorious for ignoring safety for "the shot". I think anybody putting on show for reporters/cameras should be using the most offensive brake on market. Might help them honor the 180deg rule. But ya still up to the shooter to control environment, esp. if he is the one behind trigger and is giving a demonstration on safety. If it had been any of the instructors I've been to, the ass chewin would have rained down like water. Always be safe, even if you have to draw the "safe" line in pretty crayola colors for all the idiots.EDIT: took a second look at pic and noted guys on far left using another guys as muzzle blast shield, yet still trying to get out the farthest for pic, classy...
After watching photographers stand in the middle of the road to get shots at WRC stages... I don't put it past them to simply ignore rules even if they're in place for safety.
That being said, it doesn't look like the shooter has ear pro on, so maybe it's specifically a photo op. I know I wouldn't just wear foamies while shooting an AR indoors.
Would have to depend on the reporter. Though I might be a bit biased. Of course these are often the same reporters who go to the site of the story and I pray a stray shell takes them out in a explosion of gibbets and microphone. That make me a bad person?
That said, another great example of gun owners being their own worst enemy at times. Trust me I've seen more than my fair share of examples of gun owners, even some instructors, being complete dumbassess and adding more fuel to the fire.
Straight Shooter
09-01-14, 18:41
Yes, Id like to encourage all media folks, especially from CNN and the like, to stand as far forward of the firing line as possible.
More info required. What, precisely, is being done? And why?
Is he firing at that moment? There is no live ammo in sight and ear pro are on the table.
Two reporters are ahead of the firing within ~3ft(?), at ~10ft(?) offset, well clear of the muzzle.
Glock is pointed to the side, slide locked back. Like so many tabled guns and display cases at ranges.
Irregular, unconventional, or outside of a range rule is not automatically unsafe.
You will do harm to your own cause if you seek to expose borderline unsafe minutiae. Haven't we been down this road before?
I am guessing it was a static "display" shot - no ammo, no live fire. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I guess I am OK with it - until I saw the Glock. Slide back or not, the barrel is pointed at "something you are not prepared to destroy". Major safety violation. No excuse for this.
I've left guns shops when idiots (in front of the counter and behind the counter) let slide-locked gun barrels (and some not at slide-lock) drift my way.
Upon closer examination of the photo, I see his finger is pressing the trigger. Looks like everyone has ears on but him. I think everyone has eyes on too. Could be a demo of the fireing position, with live fire to follow. Hopefully everyone move back for that. Still don't like that Glock position.
Failure2Stop
09-01-14, 19:11
I would have no issue with that, depending on the safety protocols in place.
Go to any action shooting event and you will get way more online with the projectile path forward of muzzle as a spectator.
Eta, just saw the pistol.
Yeah, that's an issue.
Camera men are between 8-10 feet to the side and their angle to the muzzle is no greater than it would be if the shooter were transitioning from a left to a right target with another shooter next to him
TriviaMonster
09-01-14, 19:17
Put a brake on an SR10 and stand there.
There's a lot of potential fail there to be sure, but I'd need context to form a firm opinion of level of fail. As ears are on the table, etc looks like photo op vs demo.
There's a lot of potential fail there to be sure, but I'd need context to form a firm opinion of level of fail. As ears are on the table, etc looks like photo op vs demo.
Even if it is a "press shot" and the ar is not loaded, the lay out send the wrong message to the uninformed masses.
Ya agree, but also have to say cameramen are notorious for ignoring safety for "the shot". I think anybody putting on show for reporters/cameras should be using the most offensive brake on market. Might help them honor the 180deg rule. But ya still up to the shooter to control environment, esp. if he is the one behind trigger. And if it had been any of the instructors I've been to, the ass chewin would have rained down like water. Always be safe, even if you have to draw the "safe" line in pretty crayola colors for all the idiots.EDIT: took a second look at pic and noted guys on far left using another guys as muzzle blast shield, yet still trying to get out the farthest for pic, classy...
That's pretty much where I'm at. I think Senator Graham could have made a much more favorable impression if he stopped and asked everyone to move behind the firing line because he is a safe shooter. And he could spin that Glock downrange while he was at it.
More info required. What, precisely, is being done? And why?
Is he firing at that moment? There is no live ammo in sight and ear pro are on the table.
Two reporters are ahead of the firing within ~3ft(?), at ~10ft(?) offset, well clear of the muzzle.
Glock is pointed to the side, slide locked back. Like so many tabled guns and display cases at ranges.
Irregular, unconventional, or outside of a range rule is not automatically unsafe.
It is my understanding it was a live fire demonstration. But even if not...I think the "all guns are always loaded" rule applies. And yes gun shops often have handguns displayed that way, but I think "at the range" you should be as safe as possible, especially if you are promoting "gun safety."
And just so we are clear, I don't think this even come close to things like the retard in Target who was inches from flagging his kids head with his CCW, but at the same time if we are going to send a "gun safety" message, then it shouldn't be as careless as the ones done by Bloomberg.
There's a lot of potential fail there to be sure, but I'd need context to form a firm opinion of level of fail. As ears are on the table, etc looks like photo op vs demo.
Source say's it's live fire.
http://www.gopwrite.com/home/graham-talks-gun-safety-shoots-ar-15
You will do harm to your own cause if you seek to expose borderline unsafe minutiae. Haven't we been down this road before?
We disagree. I am of the opinion that if you don't call out the "close ones" then the line get's blurred and people get really unsafe. Right now on my FB page I have guys defending the "photographer between the targets" Yeager stunt because in the military people go forward of machine guns providing covering fire.
I think we have a new generation of "less safe" and "incredibly unsafe" shooters coming up who see things like that and because the "four rules" don't specifically address photographers downrange they think it's perfectly fine.
The entire purpose of my facebook page was to define and help people understand what is and isn't safe, and what could be done differently to prevent accidents and tragedies. For example there is NO WAY I'd be willing to shoot at a range with somebody forward of my muzzle. I'd simply pack up and go home first. This isn't a MOUT exercise, I'm not training for Syria, so there simply is no reason to do it.
That's pretty much where I'm at. I think Senator Graham could have made a much more favorable impression if he stopped and asked everyone to move behind the firing line because he is a safe shooter. And he could spin that Glock downrange while he was at it.Ya I just noticed I left out half of the sentence. "But ya still up to the shooter to control environment, esp. if he is the one behind trigger"-- and is giving a demonstration on safety-- is how sentence was suppose to end. But ya same message, just can't type as fast as my mind wonders:laugh:
While I feel like an arfcom moderator. I just banned a bunch of guys and deleted a lot of comments that were excusing the above because "Everyone should be behind the shooter or the firing line" isn't specifically listed as one of the four rules and must therefore be ok.
Really depressed now that there are a significant number of otherwise experienced shooters who don't seem to "get it." Came really close to just flushing the entire page and not investing any more of my time.
I don't know that I'm helping anyone. Those that "get it" already "get it" and those who don't seem to be firmly convinced that it's acceptable because Delta guys do it and will even defend Yeager and his asinine stunts.
We disagree. I am of the opinion that if you don't call out the "close ones" then the line get's blurred and people get really unsafe. Right now on my FB page I have guys defending the "photographer between the targets" Yeager stunt because in the military people go forward of machine guns providing covering fire.
I think we have a new generation of "less safe" and "incredibly unsafe" shooters coming up who see things like that and because the "four rules" don't specifically address photographers downrange they think it's perfectly fine.
The entire purpose of my facebook page was to define and help people understand what is and isn't safe, and what could be done differently to prevent accidents and tragedies. For example there is NO WAY I'd be willing to shoot at a range with somebody forward of my muzzle. I'd simply pack up and go home first. This isn't a MOUT exercise, I'm not training for Syria, so there simply is no reason to do it.
Ok, then can you elaborate as to what impending danger it is you see in the photo? In other words how would you envision an injury transpiring in that specific scenario? What do you believe would have to occur and what would you suspect the odds were of it doing so?
wildcard600
09-01-14, 20:36
FWIW looks like the glock has a lock cable through it.
MountainRaven
09-01-14, 20:59
Only thing I have to say about the Glock is that I was taught in the Boy Scouts that any gun - loaded or not - that is not being handled by a human being (or presumably any other animal) is absolutely, positively no threat to anybody in any way. I seem to recall that at Gunsite, the Four Rules are essentially turned off once the pistol returns to its holster, on the grounds that there is absolutely no way for a finger (or anything else) to get to the trigger on a gun in a (quality) holster.
As far as the AR: It seems to me that I've seen lots and lots of guys - including professional trigger pullers - break the 180 degree rule at square ranges rather frequently.
We're not exactly talking Suarez/Yeager-level, cameraman standing next to the target (while the shooters are basically encouraged to sweep everybody around them with the muzzle of their weapons) during livefire idiocy, here.
Could the angle the picture was taken at be portraying something that isn't happening?
If it is live fire indoors the guy doing the shooting is going to be deafened in short order... :ouch:
Could the angle the picture was taken at be portraying something that isn't happening?
If it is live fire indoors the guy doing the shooting is going to be deafened in short order... :ouch:
I thought of that. Look at the relative index points, shadows, and scale the distances at various points.
This event should have a governor with absolute authority. He would verify that no ammo was present and verify that each weapon was unloaded. Regardless, the probability for a negligent discharge increases with such scenarios. Me personally? I'd get the hell out of there.
Ok, then can you elaborate as to what impending danger it is you see in the photo? In other words how would you envision an injury transpiring in that specific scenario? What do you believe would have to occur and what would you suspect the odds were of it doing so?
Any unexpected loss of control on the part of the shooter. This can include any of the following:
1. Some careless dipshit reporter walking into him from behind.
2. He doesn't realize he isn't wearing ears and is startled by the discharge and doubles as he fumbles.
3. He suffers some health related event and loses control of his weapon.
In any of those scenarios, and dozens of others, are people going to be safer forward of the muzzle or behind the muzzle? And sure some scenarios may be unlikely, but all it takes is asking everyone to "remain behind the line" so nothing unintentional happens.
Very few people who have unintentionally shot somebody really expected that it could happen. What is the common denominator in all of this instances? They really didn't think it could happen and even if they didn't start out with the muzzle pointed at somebody, during the course of the unexpected event the muzzle found it's way there.
And we shouldn't rely on statistical occurrence to keep us safe. If we did that most of us wouldn't carry firearms because statistically we aren't likely to need them. But rather than trust statistics to keep us safe, we can instead observe some safe practices. This includes having a means to defend ourselves should it become necessary AND observing some simple practices which keep others safe when we are shooting.
Almost without exception every range I've been to has a rule about remaining behind the firing line while the range is hot. And they have very specific rules about condition of weapons and handling of weapons while the range is cold and a cold range is the ONLY time you move forward of the firing line.
My question to you is what dire consequences would there have been in asking all of those reporters present to please stay behind the firing line while the range is hot for their own safety.
I hate to call this guy out, I love that a US Senator is actually taking the time to promote gun safety and attempt to present a positive image of safe and responsible firearm ownership. But he missed a few "easy ones" that could easily be used against him.
Could the angle the picture was taken at be portraying something that isn't happening?
If it is live fire indoors the guy doing the shooting is going to be deafened in short order... :ouch:
https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/9299_274111269463078_742141973363402079_n.jpg?oh=1466ebbe568fd434f9d87105b6c5a0c5&oe=5478FBDD
Well I can tell you one thing for sure, the photographer who took the photo is in front of the shooter. And so are at least TWO guys at the extreme left of the photo. Two more are forward of the shooting line but not in front of the table.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-14, 00:38
Maybe the table isn't square to the range axis, but I doubt it.
It isn't like most cameras can't be controlled by a remote or even a phone these days. Put it on a tripod down range and get some really exciting media.
Guy has orange earplugs or a baaaadd wax problem and a cable thru the glock. I've seen far dumber things at a public indoor range.
Maybe the table isn't square to the range axis, but I doubt it.
It isn't like most cameras can't be controlled by a remote or even a phone these days. Put it on a tripod down range and get some really exciting media.
Guy has orange earplugs or a baaaadd wax problem and a cable thru the glock. I've seen far dumber things at a public indoor range.
I think most of us have. I've certainly documented much, much worse on my facebook page. The only reason I pinged this one at all was because it was a US Senator promoting "gun safety." If this was some random guy at the range with some buddies on the wall taking pics I probably wouldn't have bothered.
I just think if you are gonna promote gun safety, you should set a strong example. Kinda like if you are gonna preach at church you should probably know your bible.
Averageman
09-02-14, 06:52
Occasionally when firing at an indoor range you will have a nearly spent bullet come back with little energy, but enough to have some splatter give you a tiny bit of felt impact. Back when I was shooting NRA small bore this was fairly common, please bear in mind this was the 1970's when it was a fairly common occasion where I shot.
I can only imagine the amount of bad press and feigned indignation and "trauma" that would occur if this happened in a room full of reporters.
Apricotshot
09-02-14, 07:17
I don't see anything unsafe at all in the picture. No one was forward of the muzzle where they could have been swept.
Failure2Stop
09-02-14, 08:20
I think most of us have. I've certainly documented much, much worse on my facebook page. The only reason I pinged this one at all was because it was a US Senator promoting "gun safety." If this was some random guy at the range with some buddies on the wall taking pics I probably wouldn't have bothered.
I just think if you are gonna promote gun safety, you should set a strong example. Kinda like if you are gonna preach at church you should probably know your bible.
I see what you're getting at, as far as public perception, and I do agree that the tabled pistol pointed AT the photographers is bad.
However, as far as the carbine, it is well within a safe aiming area. There is no safety rule that states: "Muzzles will be not less than 90 degrees offset from any person," nor is it necessary.
The reports are the only thing that makes me say this COULD be an unsafe setting... as they are largely fukking retarded imbeciles. When I'm out with people who are experienced, we'll shoot past each other like this on occasion.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-14, 09:47
It's not like the picture from China where the guy is holding the target on two sticks above his head, with no eye-pro.
Alpha Sierra
09-02-14, 13:57
The reports are the only thing that makes me say this COULD be an unsafe setting... as they are largely fukking retarded imbeciles. When I'm out with people who are experienced, we'll shoot past each other like this on occasion.
Plus 1
Really depressed now that there are a significant number of otherwise experienced shooters who don't seem to "get it." Came really close to just flushing the entire page and not investing any more of my time.
I hope you do keep it going, as I enjoy the material you have been posting. I don't post in many discussions on Facebook anymore, though. I just got tired of arguing with strangers. :cool:
Reminds me of the idiots defending Yeager when he puts his photographer in front of people shooting handguns. People defend this as not violation any of the four laws.
There is no fix for stupid, or bat poop nuts.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
I see what you're getting at, as far as public perception, and I do agree that the tabled pistol pointed AT the photographers is bad.
However, as far as the carbine, it is well within a safe aiming area. There is no safety rule that states: "Muzzles will be not less than 90 degrees offset from any person," nor is it necessary.
Nearly every range I've been to has a rule about staying behind the line when it is "hot." Granted it's a range specific rule so typically not included in the rules of safe gun handling, but they are at a range.
Reminds me of the idiots defending Yeager when he puts his photographer in front of people shooting handguns. People defend this as not violation any of the four laws.
There is no fix for stupid, or bat poop nuts.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I honored those shooting at that Yeager event as "Idiots of the Day" on my page. The Yeager defenders came out of the woodwork. It is very much like people saying they should be able to drive 110 mph on US interstates because people on the autobahn can do it and certainly they are as talented as any driver on the autobahn.
Failure2Stop
09-02-14, 15:44
Yeah, I honored those shooting at that Yeager event as "Idiots of the Day" on my page. The Yeager defenders came out of the woodwork. It is very much like people saying they should be able to drive 110 mph on US interstates because people on the autobahn can do it and certainly they are as talented as any driver on the autobahn.
There is a pretty significant gap between putting a photographer beside a target and having people slightly forward of perfectly in line.
There is a pretty significant gap between putting a photographer beside a target and having people slightly forward of perfectly in line.
Yes, there is.
But as we both know, at most ranges nobody goes forward of the line when the range is "hot." It is admittedly a wide safety margin, but I cannot think of a decent need to violate it and a photo op hardly qualifies.
If this were an advanced range with individuals doing team movements or anything like that it would be a completely different discussion. And of course the problem has been identified, all the hard core gun golfers from Tactical Response found my page and got a knot in their panties because I criticized their "airsoft with live ammo" approach to firearms.
Hell, our state built a rifle range with the parking lot 45 degrees off and 20 yds ahead of the firing line. With no F'ing berm between them. Stupid.
Belmont31R
09-03-14, 01:04
A lot safer than this:
http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzE0LzQzL2Zlcmd1c29uc3dhLjUzNmQwLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/95e24b31/605/ferguson-swat-protest.jpg
Hell, our state built a rifle range with the parking lot 45 degrees off and 20 yds ahead of the firing line. With no F'ing berm between them. Stupid.
Too bad is wasn't in Tennessee, you could host the Yeager Nationals. They could actually set up "shoot" and "no shoot" targets in the parking lot with photographers in the cars.
Failure2Stop
09-03-14, 09:36
But as we both know, at most ranges nobody goes forward of the line when the range is "hot." It is admittedly a wide safety margin, but I cannot think of a decent need to violate it and a photo op hardly qualifies.
I do not disagree with with that.
montanadave
09-03-14, 11:13
A lot safer than this:
http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzE0LzQzL2Zlcmd1c29uc3dhLjUzNmQwLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/95e24b31/605/ferguson-swat-protest.jpg
Touche'
Eurodriver
09-03-14, 13:16
That girl in the back got a DONK
That girl in the back got a DONK
Thigh friction.
SilverBullet432
09-03-14, 15:59
That gun needs a mean ass comp! :sarcastic:
That gun needs a mean ass comp! :sarcastic:
A 74 comp would be hilarious, the only downside would be that the media would then report the AR as a "high powered rifle."
St.Michael
09-03-14, 22:37
There are always gonna be people who don't think that far ahead. Guys who think there are "big boy rules". I don't even try to explain it.
Moose-Knuckle
09-04-14, 16:36
Meh . . . safe or unsafe the whole dog and pony show has a retard vibe.
I do not see an issue with this, except for the orientation of the handgun.
The "what if's" you list are so improbable that they would not be high up on a list of risks/consequences when doing risk analysis for a range session (ORM).
Sure, you need to make sure that you account for where everyone is once shooting commences, but this is not a blatant safety violation.
For me, the 180 degree safety angle used for competition is quite different from the 45 degree angle I was used to in the military, with regards to shooting, and 360 degress with regards to weapon orientation.
I do not see an issue with this, except for the orientation of the handgun.
The "what if's" you list are so improbable that they would not be high up on a list of risks/consequences when doing risk analysis for a range session (ORM).
Sure, you need to make sure that you account for where everyone is once shooting commences, but this is not a blatant safety violation.
For me, the 180 degree safety angle used for competition is quite different from the 45 degree angle I was used to in the military, with regards to shooting, and 360 degress with regards to weapon orientation.
It is "improbable" that most of us will ever need our carry gun, but we carry one every day regardless of "probability."
It is unlikely Senator Graham would be subject to something that would cause him to lose control of his rifle, but at the same time I cannot think of any valid reason to have anybody forward of the firing line when the range is "hot." There is just no benefit. We observe certain safety guidelines so we are doing everything reasonable to prevent accidental shootings. Certainly we have enough of those incidents and having all the reporters behind the line is a small consideration in the pursuit of safe shooting.
Failure2Stop
09-04-14, 18:27
It is "improbable" that most of us will ever need our carry gun, but we carry one every day regardless of "probability."
It is unlikely Senator Graham would be subject to something that would cause him to lose control of his rifle, but at the same time I cannot think of any valid reason to have anybody forward of the firing line when the range is "hot." There is just no benefit. We observe certain safety guidelines so we are doing everything reasonable to prevent accidental shootings. Certainly we have enough of those incidents and having all the reporters behind the line is a small consideration in the pursuit of safe shooting.
Dude, I'm with you to an extent in regard to public perception and media attention, but any competitive action shooting event that has a tricky 180 point will have muzzles closer to observers than this photo shoot with regard to the carbine.
Public range setups are the way they are for maximizing safety among completely untrained people. Would it have been better for the photo op to be set up that way? Sure, but the shown arrangement was not unsafe.
Dude, I'm with you to an extent in regard to public perception and media attention, but any competitive action shooting event that has a tricky 180 point will have muzzles closer to observers than this photo shoot with regard to the carbine.
Public range setups are the way they are for maximizing safety among completely untrained people. Would it have been better for the photo op to be set up that way? Sure, but the shown arrangement was not unsafe.
Competitive shooting, team training and the like are different environments with different priorities and have to adjust their safety level accordingly.
Also it's hard to have black and white "safe/unsafe" determinations because shooters have different levels of ability. Could Larry Vickers have done that demonstration with people completely downrange without putting any at real risk? Probably. Would Larry Vickers ever do that if he didn't have to? Probably not.
Larry would likely have had the mindset to ask the reporters to move behind the firing line because it is "safer." And perhaps "safer" should be the general goal. We don't need to go to extremes where each shooter is firing down a bullet proof tube but as you noted "untrained" people are the lowest common denominator so we generally should error on the side of caution, and this includes "images" being promoted in the name of gun safety.
I also feel like we are getting off the point a little. I suspect if we were all at the same range we'd all arrive at mostly the same conclusions regarding safe training and gun handling.
Dude, I'm with you to an extent in regard to public perception and media attention, but any competitive action shooting event that has a tricky 180 point will have muzzles closer to observers than this photo shoot with regard to the carbine.
Public range setups are the way they are for maximizing safety among completely untrained people. Would it have been better for the photo op to be set up that way? Sure, but the shown arrangement was not unsafe.
Competitive shooting, team training and the like are different environments with different priorities and have to adjust their safety level accordingly.
Also it's hard to have black and white "safe/unsafe" determinations because shooters have different levels of ability. Could Larry Vickers have done that demonstration with people completely downrange without putting any at real risk? Probably. Would Larry Vickers ever do that if he didn't have to? Probably not.
Larry would likely have had the mindset to ask the reporters to move behind the firing line because it is "safer." And perhaps "safer" should be the general goal. We don't need to go to extremes where each shooter is firing down a bullet proof tube but as you noted "untrained" people are the lowest common denominator so we generally should error on the side of caution, and this includes "images" being promoted in the name of gun safety.
I also feel like we are getting off the point a little. I suspect if we were all at the same range we'd all arrive at mostly the same conclusions regarding safe training and gun handling.
Which safety rule did he violate?
On your Facebook page you list the 4 big ones ( we used 5, with safety and trigger as separate rules, otherwise the same).
Did he neglect to treat the gun as unloaded?
Did he point the gun at something he was not willing to destroy?
Did he manipulate the safety and put his funger on the trigger without being on target, and without an intent to fire?
Was he unaware of the of the target, it's foreground and background?
Again, while it is good practice to have everyone online with or behind the firing line, there is nothing unsafe with what was being done.
For what it's worth, the Senator served 6 years in the Air Force, as well as the Air National Guard (currently serving) so it is possible to conclude that he has at least a basic grasp of range safety.
Which safety rule did he violate?
On your Facebook page you list the 4 big ones ( we used 5, with safety and trigger as separate rules, otherwise the same).
Rules of indoor ranges are typically more expansive than Coopers four rules of gun safety. Without trying to sound dismissive we've covered this already quite a bit and I don't want to run it into the ground.
thopkins22
09-05-14, 02:22
Rules of indoor ranges are typically more expansive than Coopers four rules of gun safety. Without trying to sound dismissive we've covered this already quite a bit and I don't want to run it into the ground.
You kind of make the point that it was in fact safe...even if it broke range policy or your personal safety rules. As F2S pointed out...almost every weekend I find myself RUNNING with a loaded firearm on gravel and other less than ideal surfaces, under the stress of trying to go faster than everyone else, a lot of the time with my muzzle being pointed not that far from the 180...add in a little geometry and wide bays and it our matches that are in accordance with guidelines from USPSA and IDPA would still ruffle the feathers of some.
Now it's true that at matches I've never broken the 180, but the 180 gets kinda weird with wide bays, long runs across it, and so forth. I have intentionally and knowingly stood at about 45º to someone who is respected by many here and that I personally trust though.
montanadave
09-05-14, 07:30
Yes, it's unsafe. Because the only place I wanna see Lindsey Graham holding a gun is somewhere on the now nonexistent Syrian-Iraqi border. Hopefully pointed at John McCain. :sarcastic:
And we shouldn't rely on statistical occurrence to keep us safe. If we did that most of us wouldn't carry firearms because statistically we aren't likely to need them. But rather than trust statistics to keep us safe, we can instead observe some safe practices. This includes having a means to defend ourselves should it become necessary AND observing some simple practices which keep others safe when we are shooting.
Do you know how to do a risk analysis and develop and carry out an ORM plan for a live fire event?
It is all about acceptable risk.
Standing to either side of a gun being fired, it's possible for a tiny bit of the metal jacket to tear off and fly sideways.
How do I know?
A little girl went with her Grandfather hunting. Immediately after pulling the trigger (she had been very slightly ahead and well to the side of him) she told her Grandfather her chest felt funny. Turns out a tiny fragment of his bullet tore away from the bullet as it exited the barrel. This tiny fragment entered her heart and within a few hours she died.
I know her Father and he relayed the story to me.
Don't EVER stand beyond the rifle end even if you're at a 90 degree angle.
Do you know how to do a risk analysis and develop and carry out an ORM plan for a live fire event?
It is all about acceptable risk.
For me it's about necessary risk. If it isn't necessary, it isn't acceptable, at least to me. Can you please explain to me what is gained by having anyone forward of the firing line at an indoor range? What additional skill is being gained? Who is benefiting and how?
thopkins22
09-05-14, 15:01
For me it's about necessary risk. If it isn't necessary, it isn't acceptable, at least to me. Can you please explain to me what is gained by having anyone forward of the firing line at an indoor range? What additional skill is being gained? Who is benefiting and how?
The argument could be made that the public who is learning something about gun safety is benefitting by seeing better images of the event and they're therefore more likely to pay attention. The videographers are benefitting by getting better images than their competitors, increasing their likelihood of being contracted again. Lindsey Graham is benefitting by being photographed with an AR in his hands, cementing him in the minds of voters as being solidly in their camp on gun control and what exactly he means when he says he's pro-gun. Many folks(even many republicans,) claim pro-gun...but then mutter about certain restrictions making sense.
Was it self-serving for him to hold this event? Of course. Did he gain skills? Of course not. Did he put anyone in any undue danger? It's pretty obvious that he did not. By driving to and from the event he put hundreds of people in far more danger than anyone in that room experienced at any point. One step forward of the line about 5-10 steps perpendicular on his sight line? Not really worth getting bent out of shape about. Would I want to shoot with him? Hell no, but not because I'd feel unsafe.
For me it's about necessary risk. If it isn't necessary, it isn't acceptable, at least to me. Can you please explain to me what is gained by having anyone forward of the firing line at an indoor range? What additional skill is being gained? Who is benefiting and how?
You missed my point.
I am not advocating having people freely moving forward of the firing line, I am saying that you can quite safely have people forward of the firing line, as long as you cover all your bases. That is why I asked if you had ever done a risk analysis, and developed and carried out an ORM plan for a live fire event. It strikes me as odd when you say that we should not use statistical occurrence when establishing safety protocols, if you view it against proper risk analysis standards.
I asked what kind of safety rule he violated. That there were a couple of people marginally in front of the firing line, totally clear of the muzzle is not a safety violation, when viewed in the context of the four fundamental rules.
Did the range have a 180 degree safety rule? I don't know. If it did, yes, they were in violation of the range rules, but it was still not unsafe.
Granted, my view might be skewed, as I am used to a totally different reality. I am used to a reality where there was no problem moving with the gun facing up range, or shooting with people 20 meters (as an example) in front of me (as long as they were outside a 45 degree angle). When I started shooting competition after getting out of the service, I really had to focus on the gun facing down range aspect of civilian ranges.
You missed my point.
I am not advocating having people freely moving forward of the firing line, I am saying that you can quite safely have people forward of the firing line, as long as you cover all your bases.
You seem to have missed my point. What is gained by having those few photographers forward of the firing line? Who did it benefit and how? In what way would things have changed by having those few reporters remain behind the firing line with the rest of the reporters?
I completely understood your point, that they weren't in grave danger or anything. I understand completely that they are in "small risk" territory. My question is, why have any "small risk" if the same purposes can be accomplished without that "small risk" factor.
Tripods and remote cameras can easily accomplish the same photo perspective if that goal was considered to be an important one.
The argument could be made that the public who is learning something about gun safety is benefitting by seeing better images of the event and they're therefore more likely to pay attention. The videographers are benefitting by getting better images than their competitors, increasing their likelihood of being contracted again. Lindsey Graham is benefitting by being photographed with an AR in his hands, cementing him in the minds of voters as being solidly in their camp on gun control and what exactly he means when he says he's pro-gun. Many folks(even many republicans,) claim pro-gun...but then mutter about certain restrictions making sense.
Was it self-serving for him to hold this event? Of course. Did he gain skills? Of course not. Did he put anyone in any undue danger? It's pretty obvious that he did not. By driving to and from the event he put hundreds of people in far more danger than anyone in that room experienced at any point. One step forward of the line about 5-10 steps perpendicular on his sight line? Not really worth getting bent out of shape about. Would I want to shoot with him? Hell no, but not because I'd feel unsafe.
And my question remains, what would be lost if those reporters were simply "one step back" and everyone was behind the firing line? The same photo op and story could still be accomplished.
thopkins22
09-05-14, 18:56
And my question remains, what would be lost if those reporters were simply "one step back" and everyone was behind the firing line? The same photo op and story could still be accomplished.
Sure, that'd be fine and perhaps safer. But per the subject of the post...I do think it was safe.
Standing to either side of a gun being fired, it's possible for a tiny bit of the metal jacket to tear off and fly sideways.
How do I know?
A little girl went with her Grandfather hunting. Immediately after pulling the trigger (she had been very slightly ahead and well to the side of him) she told her Grandfather her chest felt funny. Turns out a tiny fragment of his bullet tore away from the bullet as it exited the barrel. This tiny fragment entered her heart and within a few hours she died.
I know her Father and he relayed the story to me.
Don't EVER stand beyond the rifle end even if you're at a 90 degree angle.
Notice that no one has responded to this incredible story. Why do you suspect that might that be?
thopkins22
09-05-14, 21:49
Notice that no one has responded to this incredible story. Why do you suspect that might that be?
Probably because it's incredibly unlikely to ever happen again...even with conditions that are prime for it(fast twist barrel, hot loaded super lightweight and thin jacketed bullets, crimped too tight so the jacket is damaged, and someone standing at a very close distance to the muzzle at whatever angle this happened at.)
Bullet fragments that are light enough to just whip to the side because of the centrifugal forces or that acted like boomerangs and caught some air just wrong, are almost guaranteed to be too light and lose energy too quickly to cause that kind of injury. Similar to standing next to a muzzle brake...you're being hit with particles that are moving way faster than this could have been...yet they're so light that they don't do anything other than pepper you and at most embed in the skin shallow enough that you can wash them off.
Otherwise, you'd have to make the argument that if a bullet comes apart in my 3-gun rifle with an SJC Titan comp on it, I'm likely to kill someone who is not just in front of my rifle, but indeed those to the side and even behind my muzzle.
I'm not calling BS on Abraham's friend...but I am saying that the odds of it ever happening again are incredibly low. Absurdly low.
Sure, that'd be fine and perhaps safer. But per the subject of the post...I do think it was safe.
Fair enough. And with that hopefully we have arrived at a consensus.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.