Moron downrange photographer

[center442]

That isn't the point. Jose is (correct me if I'm wrong, Jose) saying that the video of a handgun being capable of blowing completely through body armor could itself be used as anti-gun ammunition. Something along the lines of "Look how strong their handguns are! Even body armor won't protect you! Get these guns off the streets! Protect our police officers!"

Your (and Jose's) point are taken. I was taking the body armor post in the context in which it was posted: an experiment to answer a question. An anti-gunner will take anything, in or out of context, that serves to advance their agenda, so I can see your point. The same could be said of many things. Back when I was doing a lot of metallic silhouette shooting we regularly had some guns/loads that would penetrate heavy steel targets. I suppose anti-gunners could have used some footage of that to show how dangerous those guns were: "Look, these guns can even penetrate armor! We have to save the children!"

This is my main beef with Yeager. I understand his point that we want to strive to make training realistic. However, it seems unnecessary to have a photographer down range because he holds zero value within the tactical training. Certainly they could perform training drills with persons down range that would be more tactically relevant. That's why I think the whole thing was idiotic - the photographer served no real purpose within the training. It was an absolutely unnecessary risk. But I wouldn't say the same for all scenarios where someone is down range.

That was the main thrust of my post. The downrange photographer post seemed to serve no useful purpose. To me it seemed like such a glaring violation of common sense that I would put it in a whole different class than a video of someone shooting an inanimate object, regardless of what that object was.

If I were an anti, I could probably make a good case that shooting at cardboard targets with roughly human shapes was evil. To my mind, there was just a world of difference between the body armor video and the downrange photographer video. One served a purpose; the other ?

 

[Kalahari]

The same could be said of many things. Back when I was doing a lot of metallic silhouette shooting we regularly had some guns/loads that would penetrate heavy steel targets. I suppose anti-gunners could have used some footage of that to show how dangerous those guns were: "Look, these guns can even penetrate armor! We have to save the children!"

You're right. I think his sole point was to point this out, because so many people were pointing it out in this thread.

That was the main thrust of my post. The downrange photographer post seemed to serve no useful purpose. To me it seemed like such a glaring violation of common sense that I would put it in a whole different class than a video of someone shooting an inanimate object, regardless of what that object was.

If I were an anti, I could probably make a good case that shooting at cardboard targets with roughly human shapes was evil. To my mind, there was just a world of difference between the body armor video and the downrange photographer video. One served a purpose; the other ?

Yup. My basic stance is that personnel downrange is not inherently bad, however, in this scenario it served no purpose, and thus was an unnecessary risk.

 

[DukeInFlorida]

Damn, tried to see the video, and got:

"Page not found"

 

[DrEvil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3t0wuLDWQ

 

[Ish]

Sorry to say, but after watching this last video (the explication of what happened on the 1st video) now I truly believe that those guys, all of them, are out of their minds. The guy is comparing driving a car everyday with being in front of the shooters, how stupid that can be? So the cars can have a problem and crash another vehicle, but a photographer with a camera on his shoulders and in the position that he was, can’t have a muscle going off? Can’t go out of balance? What about if the shooter losses control or has a muscle spasm while shooting? What about if the gun has the “same” problem that the car that crash the other car? How can someone compare crash at 30 miles/h on a car that by the way has airbags, brakes, steering wheel, etc with a guy in front of a shooter?

BTW is him calling himself an instructor? He looks more like a clown to me.

Ish.

 

[cekim]

He looks more like a[n ass] clown to me.

Fixed it for you...

 

[M1911]

Fixed it for you...

Yup. He is an ass clown.