Shooting is dangerous. We all get that, right?

Slow Learner Syndrome: Why we keep making the same mistakes | Shooting Wire:

This is an extract from Paul Markel's May 31, 2013 guest column in The Shooting Wire's  email/blog.  I include it because it is the testimony of a man who has been in training shooters, and has seen the cause, event and consequences of training "events".   He is familiar with the circumstances, and provides an object lesson for those of us who train for, and compete in, Action Shooting Competitions:

..... While serving with the Sixth Marine Regiment a pistol was discharged by a fellow Marine negligently and the bullet passed within a foot of my head. Using the Near Miss Policy we can come up with two positive learning points. First, the shooter in question, although violating the "Treat Every Gun as if it is loaded" rule, followed the "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to shoot" rule. (For that I am grateful). 

 During the after action, the shooter stated that he "assumed" the chamber was empty even though he knew there was a loaded magazine in the pistol. Because of the policy of carrying firearms in "Condition 3" (magazine inserted, chamber empty until instructed to "load") the man thought it would be "safe" to snap the trigger. 

 In the aftermath the young man received company punishment but the "Condition 3" rule was never addressed. The institutional mentality was that it was the fault of the man, not the policy. In the clarity of hindsight, I can say it was a bit of both. Carrying half-loaded guns leads to a false sense of "safety". It's a sort of "I don't need to be as careful as I would with a loaded gun, because it's not really loaded." No one ever had a negligent discharge and said "Damn, I thought the gun was loaded."

In case anyone has missed the point, Mr. Markel is making a point for "Hot Ranges".

COLD RANGE:
IPSC ranges are always "Cold Ranges".  That means that all firearms are completely unloaded at all times, except when they are loaded on the firing ling under the direct supervision of a qualified Range Officer.  And it is the Range Officer's duty to ensure that all firearms are again completely unloaded before the competitor is allowed to exit the shooting area.   To complete the definition ... although all weapons are required to be unloaded, they will at all times be treated as if they were loaded ... with a round in the chamber, and the safety off.  If any action by the firearm owner should endanger the owner or another person (eg: by pointing the weapon at him/herself, or at another person, or in a direction which might endanger another person), then that firearm owner is summarily ejected from the match.

This is regardless of whether the firearms is loaded, or whether an actual threat was evinced.


"Cold Ranges" are the diametric opposite of "Hot Ranges".

HOT RANGE:
In a "Hot Range", not only are all firearms assumed to be loaded .. they are, in fact, loaded.  All of the time.  Everywhere they go.

The range rules may vary.  They may in fact allow the firearm owner to be carried unloaded, but they are assumed to be loaded.  Whether dismissal from the match may be a likely penalty if a competitor is found to not have actually chambered a round is a "Local" or "Club" or "Range" rule.  To my personal knowledge, there are no non-military ranges in The United States which typically impose the "Hot Range" rule on competitors.  Military ranges?  One would expect that this would not be an entirely unlikely circumstance, under certain training circumstances, for certain military training organizations.

IPSC:  "It's A GAME, Folks!"
Military: "WE Deal In LEAD, Friend!"

(Get the picture?)

Mr. Merkel's point is that particularly in this specific example, involving professional shooters training for combat ... the "Condition Three" scenario (magazine inserted, but no round in the chamber) is a very poor third choice.

If the firearm is loaded, and you know it is, you have this lizard-brain understanding that it is NOT a good idea to drop the hammer by pulling the trigger, unless it is your intention to shoot something.  This is the "Hot Range" philosophy, reinforced by immediate Bad Things Happening.''

If the firearm is not loaded, and you know it is not loaded, your lizard-brain doesn't come into play because you (as the shooter) understand that there are no circumstances under which you are allowed to pull the trigger, unless you are in a position where you are expected to fire a round.  (Cavaet:  in IPSC you are permitted to dry-fire at a Safety Table:  but no ammunition may be handled there, and no loaded magazines may be inserted into the firearm.)

Mr. Merkel's point (and yes, I am beating this dog to death) is that a "Condition Three" version of a Hot Range is the worst possible compromise between a Hot Range and a Cold Range.   That is, it subtly encourages the shooter to assume that a round has not been chambered in the firearm, even if he knows that a loaded magazine has been inserted.

Obviously, as the fact of Merkel's statements show, this entices a shooter to act unwisely under a false impression.

SHOOTING IS A DANGEROUS SPORT!
We all understand that point, when we begin to compete in IPSC competition.  If we don't, we don't get to compete because our trainers would not certify us to compete in actual matches. 

In my own training experience, I keep a very close eye on each member of the monthly class.  If he appears to be making such an unwarranted assumption (eg: "I don't think the gun is loaded, so I am free to act as if it is not loaded") I will stop him/her immediately, and perform whatever remedial action seem most appropriate. Usually, it is a "shaming".  Peer Pressure is a powerful force when attempting to teach new practitioners in Dangerous Sports.   When the student competitor is castigated loudly and openly in front of the rest of the class, the chances are that one of two decisions will be made by that student:

1. He/She will NEVER do that (whatever) Bad Thing Again!
2. or He/She may complete the class, but will never attempt to actually compete in the sport.

Either is acceptable.

On the personal level, I think Runnin' & Gunnin' is the most fun you can have with your clothes on, and I want everyone to do it!

On the semi-pro level, I understand that not everyone can do it.  They should not even try.

It's my job to sort out the  20% who should not, from the 80% who can.

Looking over my training statistics for the past couple of years,  I see that for every 100 people who go through the class, 55% safely completed their first match.  They may or may not have come back for repeated matches, but they have proved to IPSC and to themselves that they can do this.  Sometimes, that's all they had in mind.  It's just another item to be checked off their Bucket List.

The next highest statistic is the 40% who never even came out to their Certification Match.  Again, we don't know what their reason for taking the class may have been, but it probably wasn't so that they could compete in matches.  It's impossible to tell which decided that IPSC wasn't for them (Too dangerous? Too many rules?  Too difficult?  Too ashamed?) There is no feedback from these students, so we can only guess why they decided not to follow up.

And does it really matter?

I don't think so.  I think they had something to prove to themselves, and they accomplished their goal, and then just ... walked.  Good for them, I wish them a happy life.

The other 5%?
I don't know.  They certified, but never came back.  It was a sport which did not meet their expectations, or .. whatever.

Among that 5% a small percentage who were DQ'd on their first match.  And this is the very interesting group.  There is the predictable minority who (apparently) felt offended that they couldn't measure up, but came back again "anyway" and kept at it until they certified.  A few came back again and became regular competitors.  Most just quietly faded into the background, and we never saw them again.

I'm projecting here, there is no empirical evidence to support my supposition, but I thank that those who quit on the first or second failure understood that they could not perform to the safety standards imposed by the sport, and so they voluntarily removed themselves.

A very few were so determined  (and I'm talking in terms of less than one percent of the original students) that they forced themselves to get better .. SAFER .. with experience.

It's unfortunate that a significant percentage of those few people eventually lose interest.  Although the rest of us might not have agreed if we had been asked, they seem to have considered themselves "marginal" and lost interest.  Our sport is poorer, perhaps, because of their lack of determination. But apparently this is not a sport for the Faint Of Heart.

____________

On the other hand, there are those who have no concept of safety, of competition, or of the basic "gun-handling" concepts.  We welcome them for their valiant effort to prove themselves, but we value them more for the wisdom they demonstrated when they just .. quit.  They constitute less than 1% of the students I see, and I think they are the most realistic of those who "want to give it a go".



Again, from Mr. Merkel:

I recall being on a military training range and listening to the designated safety officer give the mandatory pre-training brief. "The most important thing on the range today is safety." He droned on with his lecture. My later comment was that the safety statement was a lie or at least a gross distortion. If the most important thing on the range was safety then we wouldn't be training at all and certainly wouldn't be issuing out live ammunition to the troops. Any time bullets are being launched there is an element of danger present.

Shuffleboard is safe, shooting is dangerous. And, you know what? Skydiving is dangerous, as is deep-sea diving, motocross, bull-riding, playing football, hockey, soccer, etc. Every one of those activities is accompanied by a certain amount of risk and yet people participate in them every day. If your end goal was absolute safety, you could never get out of bed in the morning.

 If ABSOLUTE Safety was the most important goal, teen-age boys would never play high-school football.  Usually, they do so because they don't understand how dangerous the sport can be.

In IPSC we make sure that every one understands the danger.  If they can't handle it,or if they can't learn ... we don't often have to TELL anyone that they can't cut it.  They know.  The Safety Rules are so strict, everyone soon becomes aware that SAFETY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING!

"Dangerous" people learn to avoid dangerous sports.
 
Which is probably why I keep showing up.

I'm a confirmed coward!