Home Fun and Games Gun Safety Explained: Just Thought I’d Leave This Here Fun and GamesHandguns Gun Safety Explained: Just Thought I’d Leave This Here By Robert Farago - January 9, 2017 83 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Email ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ Words fail me. ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Gun Meme of the Day: 10mm Shock Edition Gun Meme of the Day: Well That’s a Raw Deal Edition Wilson Combat Announces the New Subcompact EDC X9 3.25″ 9mm Pistol 83 COMMENTS Apparently HTML is also a weak point. Reply …and proofreading. Reply Damn, i dont carry a light, I’m an idiot! But still not the one standing next to a live fire target, he even mentions ricochet in his bullshit lecture. But I don’t belong around a firearm? I’m not the one shooting in a friends general direction. Reply So he’s standing next to the target while somebody shoots it? No effing way I’m wasting time on an 11 minute video based on a summary of “words fail me”. Reply No. He was standing next to a target that was next to a target that somebody was shooting. Reply This vid has been up for a couple weeks. He’s absolutely correct. At no point did he break any of the 4 rules. This is just proving a point. Everything is ok. Reply Your reaction to this video tells what kind of gun person you are. You can be part of every category but there will be a predominate type. The Hunter: This group hunts and their choice of firearms are those specifically purposed for hunting. They don’t carry any weapon for self defense. Their guns remain unloaded at all times unless in the field. These guys disapprove of this video even though some of them shoot at a the sound of crunching leaves in the woods. The Collector: These guys go to gun shows looking for a Colt Python with small serial numbers. If they own an AR15, it doesn’t have a free floating hand guard but does have a carry handle. Revolvers and 1911’s make up the bulk of their useless arsenal. These guys disapprove of this video for two reasons. 1) “If that guy shoots as bad as I do, he might hit his partner down range!” 2) The fired gun is getting dirty. The Sports Shooter (not hunting sports) / Recreational / Competitive Shooter: These guys have the discipline and the skill to pull off this demonstration but they still disapprove of this video because the nightmares of being gigged on that technicality that cost them a medal during a National IDPA match. The Gunfighter: These guys are Focused on one thing. Shooting bad guys. They conceal carry or open carry ALL THE TIME. They keep a loaded gun within arms reach all around the house. They observe all safety rules…when practical. They realize in a public setting they may have to “flag” an innocent. They have no problem with the video because they want to know that if a shot needs to be taken where people are within this oft mentioned “30 degree angle of fire”, that they would not freeze. One good way to determine this is to train for it. Bottom line, VSO trains gunfighters not sportsmen. Do not try this at home. Reply This Reply I put myself into the “gunfighter” category, however I have the good sense to realize that accidents happen, and do not take chances with human lives on the training range. Reply Allen, Fair response. Your self awareness is commendable. However, there are those that aspire to be a better gunfighter. Shooting with real humans in your forward sight range must raise BPM quite higher than brown cardboard next to white cardboard. Trying to eliminate all risk is the equivalent of putting water wings on a BUD/S trainee. Alan, sorry for getting your name wrong. assclown category: someone who takes it upon themselves to make some kind of asinine buzzfeed-esque list shoehorning gunowners into derogatory bullet points just because someone taking issue with a douchey ”range video” that put some moron in danger makes you mad on a fundamental level Reply Butt Hurt Troll: The guy for whom inspired this video in the first place. You forgot to add people who use the word “douchey”. Shoehorning. I don’t think that means what you think it means. What I did was cobble together multiple catagories whereby, if the shoe fits…wear it. Sticking with the footwear motif. I don’t always get gun fighter training, but, when I do I seek out training from a media production company that makes gun videos. These guys aren’t teaching anything legitimate, they’re not teaching based upon experience, or professional qualification. This was a media production company that got into gun videos for the money. If you want gunfighter training, call Tom Givens, more than 60 of his students have been involved in lethal shootings, none of them charged and all but four won the gun fight. The ones who didn’t win were unarmed. If you want to learn social media marketing, post production, and camera techniques the you should get in touch with VSO. They’re really good at those things. Reply Thanks for the tip! “If you want gunfighter training, call: http://www.goarmy.com FIFY JWTaylor Marines.com FIFY I’m a Navy Corpsman, so I had to say something In the real world you might have to make hostage shots. So let’s practice with real people! Where does your arbitrary line of “that’s too risky” fall? Obviously for many it’s having someone downrange of your target when your shooting at it. But maybe you wouldn’t mind being held at gunpoint for the sake of someone else’s tactical “gunfighter” training. Reply I thought you were just supposed to shoot the hostage? Seriously though, I’m not likely to ever be the man downrange, but if someone on the staff wants to stand about a meter to the left of a target I am shooting from 15 ft away and take pictures, I am confident that all my shots will miss him. Again, do not try this at home. You forgot yet another category, The type like myself that dislikes this video because he knows that some idiots will try to replicate it. It’s moron see, moron do if you will and it usually starts with the oft heard mating call ” Hey, Y’all watch this”. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all for natural selection and the Darwin awards but….. I don’t like to see anyone giving ammo(so to speak) to the anti-gun assholes trying daily to take our rights by upping the overall firearm death numbers. Reply So your catagory would be… Gun Nanny? cuck Reply MTV News’ message to white guys should have included that word on the list of things to stop saying. Michael in GA: Would you let me shoot an apple off your head at 20 yards? It would be great “gunfighter training” and I promise to not break any of the 4 rules! Reply I could troll you so hard and say yeah, name the time and place. I could ignore you for trolling me. Or I’ll just say no thank you. Motherfuckers on this sight, except Ralph, have no sense of humor, and the rest, except for maybe five guys, have no sense. haha you are just pretending you know anything about firearms. what a cuck Reply Ask me a question about firearms. You forgot one category: The Person Who Knows Their Limitations and THAT Others are not Bound by Them: This person would not feel confident doing this demo, because they know that they sometimes miss what they are aiming at wildly. They don’t have a problem with this demonstration, because they know that other people are often far better at shooting with a handgun than they are. I happen to fall in this category. I’m certainly no gunman, but I recognize that there are many, many people who are. Usually through some combination of natural talent and extensive practice. I would feel confident doing this demo with a rifle, though, but even there, I do not feel like some sort of barely tamed warrior, prepared for the fight if it ever comes to me. Reply Everyone can shoot well. Some just need more practice. But many need to change how they practice so they aren’t reinforcing bad habits. I’m sure some degree of proficiency is proven before anyone is instructed to shoot with a person forward of the firing line. Please stop posting these full30 videos like this. I often go to full30.com to watch videos, but the way TTAG posts them makes them auto-play on mobile devices. If I happen to touch the video when I’m trying to scroll, the video plays. Reply It’s been said that you generally have to break more than one of the four rules before you are asking for a really bad day. The demonstration kinda skirts that issue. I get the idea here, but this is like tickling the dragon’s tail. Reply You should studiously avoid breaking ANY of the four rules, however, it has been said that you must break any two at the same time before bad things happen. That assumes that the RSO chewing on you like a Drill Instructor with a new Boot doesn’t count as a bad thing. Reply Yeah, it’s like licking your fingers then waving them in front of your sisters face chanting, “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you”, but with a loaded firearm. Reply And we accuse liberals of being arrogant a**holes. Reply Natural selection didnt work with this dumb ass Reply Yet. Reply I don’t really see anything wrong with what was done here. No rules were broken and no one was harmed (because the rules were respected). He also has some valid points. If you can’t do everything they just did (with someone you trust obviously, not some guy you just met) then you probably are not equipped with the right mentality and skill set to carry a gun in public. I carry a light but truth be told I don’t think it’s an absolute rule to do so unless you’re the type that spends a lot of time in dark alleyways. Reply As soon as I figure out how to do it, I’m ordering an XC1 Surefire. Sweet little toys. I carry a light normally anyway, but in a situation needing a firearm, I’d rather have it mounted to the gun already. Reply Right here: https://www.amazon.com/SureFire-Compact-Pistol-Light-Mount/dp/B016WN9WL6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484014609&sr=8-1&keywords=Surefire+xc1 $86.54 off the Surefire website price. Reply You might want to read the reviews on this light first. Sounds like it’s prone to failure with zero customer support from Surefire. I was actually thinking of making my next purchase a SF. Not anymore. For a company to respond to “Questions” but not reviews sounds like the old bait and switch…so said this internet expert. Yeah I’m just trying to muster up the balls to drop $200+ on a light. I own a few surefires and love them, X400 and one point too. But as the other comment here, I have read some fairly mixed reviews on them, which has me hesitating, and when I hesitate it’s usually a sign not to do it. Three reviews doesn’t bother me. Other sellers and competitors put out bad reviews on everything on Amazon. You can find 1 star reviews for literally everything. Haters gonna hate. I read the reviews and whatnot also call BS on the idea someone spent hours waiting on customer service for Surefire. I’ve called them a few times and gotten a representative within minutes. Email them and they’ll get back to you within 24 hours unless it’s a weekend. They have the reputation they do for a reason, they earned it. I’d be very hesitant to trust some Amazon reviewer’s comments over the reputation SF has built over years especially considering you don’t know dick about the reviewer. In fact, I’m on vacation, I’ll call SF tomorrow and see how long it takes to get a rep on the line. It is possible the light on Amazon is a counterfeit. I haven’t researched this light extensively because I’m not in the market for one but huntspot gave it a damn fine review which is in line with the rest of what I’m finding. In fact fifteen minutes of looking at the light and now I kinda want one because it’s been so highly praised. The only real complaint I see consistently is that it’s not bright enough. At 200 lumens I’m not sure how that’s not bright enough for a pistol but I have seen the complaint repeatedly and seen it answered by “This is for CCW, if you knew what you were actually buying you’d have bought the right light”. While YMMV I’m going to trust Surefire’s well deserved reputation and a bunch of professional reviews over what some anonymous guy on Amazon says. If there were 50 reviews like that, I’d be wary that Surefire finally had a bunk product but with only three and one of them 5/5 on stars plus the reviews on other websites and on YouTube I think the whiners probably are actually liars or haters. I am struck that one guy says it’s the best CCW light available and then gives it 3 stars while acknowledging that such a light will have trade offs. If they got a lemon SF would have had a replacement to them within a week 100% for free. It’s also interesting that the guy who complains the most still gives it 4/5. I’m trying to remember what I watched, I believe it was MrGunzNgear or someone, he loved it, but it gave me weird feelings. I don’t remember what I read or what I watched, but something turned me off to it. Im not in the 100% NO camp, I’ll just give it some more time before I decide anything. 200 lumens is plenty for anything I’m ever going to use it for, mostly it’s going to be carried and then left on the nightstand. (My G19 fills both rolls, mostly because I’m too cheap to buy something else) We’ll see. Like I said, I love Surefire products. I had a lot more spare cash when I bought the ones I have, and wasn’t married at the time. Now, dropping $200 on a light (I really want a E2DL ultra) even though I know how good they are, trying to explain to my wife why a flashlight is worth that money is a bit of a task. Trying to explain to her that the G26 she loves so much is $500+ was a project. Thanks for your comments strych, I always look forward to your opinions. As promised, I called SF today. I had a customer service rep on the line in under 10 minutes. 9:44 to be exact (according to my phone). That guy must have called on a weekend when they were closed or the one time a year that they’re crazy busy… or be making his story up. Personally I lean towards the latter since he said that he left a message and they never called him back. The E2D LED Ultra is a great light. 500 lumens might be a bit overpowered for most situations but it has that 5 lumen mode and even at 500 it runs more than two solid hours. I just don’t generally carry my SF lights anymore because I found they had a tendency to grow legs when other people realized what they are. I totally understand the married thing. Fortunately my wife is a gun/flashlight/knife nerd like me. Her favorite Xmas present this year was TOPS Lioness knife I got her. Now if I could just get her to let me finish the sleeve on my left arm… Check out the Streamlight TLR1-HL, About the same size as the surefire, brighter and a lot cheaper. I have one and like it a lot. Reply Streamlight makes good stuff. Honestly when I look at lights for pistols the first thing I do is cross reference it with what holsters I can get. I have a TLR-2s on my USP and finding someone who makes a holster that carries the gun and the light is a huge PITA. Yeah you’re not an idiot for not having a light on your gun but you are an idiot for shooting at something you can’t see. Correction, something you can’t identify. Reply I don’t think it’s an absolute rule to do so unless you’re the type that spends a lot of time in dark alleyways. Or you spend most of your day with your head inside an electrical controls cabinet chasing wires. Reply That’s a job/hobby issue, not a self defense issue. Reply My, that was interesting. I guess that I don’t trust most gunnies that I know to have that much control. As noted above, the 4 rules were followed. BFHD. Decent group, though. Reply I don’t trust *ME* to have that much control! The closest I have come is having someone in front of my firearm to evaluate the sound level, with the person more than 30′ to the side of the line of fire, and I thought *that* was iffy. This video is offensive. Reply It may be offensive to you because you’re using your own risk / reward assessment coupled with your own view of your personal skill level as a baseline. I have friends that would trust me in that scenario without hesitation. I also have enough faith in my ability to know with certainty that I could do it safely. Even with those two qualifiers I still wouldn’t do it because there is(in my opinion) no real reward that couldn’t be gained in other ways. I’m not offended by it personally but I do find it in very poor taste. Life is a risk, why add to it. Reply Wow. Reply Perhaps it was a poorly worded and even more poorly received way of him saying, “Train until you’re competent.” (Becaue your gear won’t make you a pro.) Reply Saw this video the first time when it came out and I will stand by my original response. This is a guy who is trying to justify his participation in a very dangerous situation and is trying not lose his livelihood. Seriously, we all sign those legal waivers every time we pay to shoot a match or take a course, but that piece of paper does not absolve criminal negligence such as having a student shoot another student on a range supposedly being supervised by professional staff. And anyone here giving this guy a pass because the “rules” were not being broken in THIS video need to go back and look up the original video that started this mess. Reply How full of oneself can you be? Reply Dude, not being able to be completely safe is different from intentionally being less safe. My door does not stop a nuclear blast, but I still keep it locked. Reply I like that. Reminds me of an old proverb… “Trust in allah, but tie your camel.” Reply Think this is bad? Look up Lucian Black from “VODA Logic”. His special brand of derp has been covered by Bearingarms.com, and numerous instructors. His response to being called a moron for pointing real (albeit unloaded) firearms at students in his classes was to write a blog post name calling anyone who disagrees with his “methods”. His breeches of firearm safely were so egregious that the state police in his home state pulled his CCW instructor certs, and from my understanding so did the NRA. Reply Meh…… Reply In the old days, ballistic daredevils used to have their partner shoot a cigarette out of their mouths. This D-bag couldn’t even bring himself to hold a balloon in his teeth. William Tell he is not. Reply With one possible exception, everything the narrator said was valid. The exception was the use of lights. Tom Givens (Rangemaster in Memphis) says that none of his students have used a flashlight in a gunfight. Low light encounters aren’t unusual but not complete darkness. Apparently the bad guys need to see what they are doing. As far as the narrator’s standing down range is concerned, it’s not something I would feel comfortable doing. Note that he stood quite far to the side rather than next to the center target. The shooter was someone in whom he had complete confidence. Judging by the size of the groups, his confidence was justified. In public, if I had cause to shoot a bad guy with an innocent party the same distance away, I would take the shot. My worry would be movement that put the innocent party in the line of fire after I decided to shoot but before I pulled the trigger. Reply He has good points about about reality. That said, you won’t be carrying EarPro and EyePro on the street, so don’t bother bringing them to the range. Oh and chuck that shot timer too. I guess I’m not operator enough to trust someone like that. Reply “That said, you won’t be carrying EarPro and EyePro on the street, so don’t bother bringing them to the range. Oh and chuck that shot timer too.” The likelihood of going deaf by not wearing hearing protection at the range is 100%. Eye protection is less important but still important when firing 100s of rounds during practice. Besides, safety gear doesn’t detract from the simulation of a real gunfight as much as shooting on a one dimensional range does. The timer is for increasing stress. Very important to simulating real world environment. Reply When you double-down on stupid… Reply Amen. Reply I remember a saying for any law enforcement incident. “When looking back, how can we make this situation safer?” Sure. You can shoot a bullett towards a target with a bystander four feet away. But if something can be done safer, why not do it and not risk the heart ache? In reflection on that. If you are paying good money for someone to train you. Do you want the person who would perform the subject the most safest way possible or the person who can do it the least safest way possible; or even “technically safe?” I would chose most safest way possible. I think there’s enough videos out there of “experts” shooting students truck tires, shooting themselves in the foot/leg, lasering newbies that show shit happens to anyone and I don’t want to be the shitty lotto winner. Reply There will always be a safer way to the point that you are not benefiting from training. Reply You don’t know anything about how people train or what they get from it. Stop being so ninja. Reply I know that you can always take more safety precautions to the point where no one benefits from training. If you care to debate that point, please do. Saying I know nothing and then name calling just makes you seem petulant. Someone else posted “doubling down on stupid”. Amen. Reply A beard does not make one an operator. A youtube channel does not make one an expert or seasoned instructor. Perhaps an unwitting false flag for Moms Demand Action? Reply I see his point and partly can agree with it but this is just a poor attempt at making a controversial marketing video. nothing more. besides, yeager and many others have had videos exactly like this. Reply The original video was portrayed as students of some type of training program. The specific tasks appeared to be to walk online while firing a pistol, in a group of unknown people, of unknown skills, while under supervision of training staff. Epic failure. The implied task was to do so safely, while not shooting the student to the right or left of you in the dressed line. Epic failure. I am a retired SF guy. With the fact that these students were not already a well trained, cohesive unit, this was an epic failure. This guy is doing nothing more than producing a video intended to dazzle and impress potential clients who have no experience and training prior to arriving at his facility. In other words this is CYA after the fact and attempting to split hairs to some how justify his training philosophy. He certainly has that right to do so. What he should have done is admit that the original video was a drama, reassure all future clients that the range SOP had been reviewed, revised as required and that all future training would be conducted in a safe, controlled manner and take into account the skill levels of every participant and adjust the training session to reflect those facts. And he should have demonstrated the proper techniques, tactics and procedures or methods by which the training should have and would in the future be conducted. That would have justified the time used to produce this video and further justified the time spent by potential clients in watching this video. He did not do this. Reply Agreed that he missed an opportunity. Reply Don’t go with stupid people to stupid places and do stupid shit. Frankly I don’t care what anyone thinks. I’m not going down range while anyone shoots at targets. Reply If robots that are programmed and designed purely for one function, a function that can outdo most top humans in that function, still have a 0.1% accident rate, then I know a Tier 1 operator can make a mistake. That’s the reason why people not in an immediate life or danger situation should remember: The only way to stop an accident is to not put your self in a position to be in an accident. Top or not, Darwin treats all equally… Reply That’s not Darwin. That’s Murphy. Reply I have no problems with his actions in this video, they are, in fact, much safer than driving to and from the range itself. A lot of stupid came out of his mouth, but the practice of standing near someone who you have verified is well trained and capable, trust, and count on as they are shooting is not a problem. Reply The morons that made this should be punished for playing with weapons unsupervised. They were probably cutting school the day they taught “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Just to recap, the Emperor was told his new suit could not be seen by unfit, incompetent or stupid people. So everyone except a child pretended to see it. That is the case here, except instead of a suit; it, is safety. Even my 11 year old grandson knows how foolish this video is. If someone has to tell you what you are doing is unsafe, you should should listen because you are not capable of keeping yourself out of harm’s way… or just live by the old adage: “God watches out for children, drunks and fools”. One other caveat; if this idiot really wanted to prove his point, he should have tanked up his buddy doing the shooting, because the 4 rules don’t include. “oh yea, don’t shoot at people when you’re drunk.” Reply I’m especially fond of the Hollywood high ready displayed by the shooter. There is a difference in tactical and tacti-cool. Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.