PRS Talk Negligent Discharges Need To Stop!

[Dthomas3523]

But you have to admit there is a slight difference between.

Being on the rifle pointed at the target down range and accidentally bumping the trigger while adjusting.

Vs

Slinging the rifle over your shoulder and sending one in the dirt besides you because you had one in the chamber.

Nope.

If that round flew over the berm, off the range and hit your kid, would you consider it different?

It obviously didn’t hit the berm and nowhere in the spotters FOV. It is very possible this round exited the range, depending on the layout of range.

 

[Dthomas3523]

The problem with this ND in particular is that the round was unaccounted for. No one knows whether it hit the berm or if it continued out of the range all together. That should strike you as a really bad thing.

I’m quite surprised everyone isn’t alarmed by this.

The fact that some people (not directed at anyone) try to differentiate this from other ND’s show that the PRS community needs to rethink their idea of safety.

Someone is going to get hurt if this continues. ND’s are on the rise.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Nope.
If that round flew over the berm, off the range and hit your kid, would you consider it different?
It obviously didn’t hit the berm and nowhere in the spotters FOV. It is very possible this round exited the range, depending on the layout of range.

I'm going to say that you are probably not correct on that from a simple logical standpoint based on the probability of causing harm.

High velocity rounds impacting right next to someone = a very high chance of injury
Rounds impacting the berm but not on the actual target = a very low chance of injury
Rounds possibly going over the berm = a higher chance of injury than hitting the berm, but much lower than right next to the person.

I understand some people want to talk in absolutist terms for shock or point value, but in the real world as well as well as in actions taken by say the police, there is a big difference between the possibility of harm depending on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that it's not important to follow safety procedures but it makes a difference.

For something you are familiar with since you mentioned speed in motoring....

Speeding.... the danger is different depending on the exact details & why often laws are different based on location.

Doing double the speed limit on an open highway in the middle of nowhere, where you can see for miles in all directions and nobody is on the road
vs.
Doing double the speed limit through a school zone when children are crossing the street

 

[Mormegil87]

Normally I agree with most of what you say @W54/XM-388 but I wholeheartedly disagree on this one

I have a job because of the "low possibility" occurrences, and the "shouldn't haves" or the "couldn't haves". "Low possibility, shouldn't have happened and couldn't have happened" arent real good excuses when someone leaves the range in a body bag.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Nope.

If that round flew over the berm, off the range and hit your kid, would you consider it different?

It obviously didn’t hit the berm and nowhere in the spotters FOV. It is very possible this round exited the range, depending on the layout of range.

1) I wouldnt let my kids play downrange.

2) how small are these backstops that if you miss the target somone gets shot?

3) there are many times a spotter cant see a round hit. Does that mean it left the range and hit a kid?

 

[Dthomas3523]

I'm going to say that you are probably not correct on that from a simple logical standpoint based on the probability of causing harm.

High velocity rounds impacting right next to someone = a very high chance of injury
Rounds impacting the berm but not on the actual target = a very low chance of injury
Rounds possibly going over the berm = a higher chance of injury than hitting the berm, but much lower than right next to the person.

I understand some people want to talk in absolutist terms for shock or point value, but in the real world as well as well as in actions taken by say the police, there is a big difference between the possibility of harm depending on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that it's not important to follow safety procedures but it makes a difference.

For something you are familiar with since you mentioned speed in motoring....

Speeding.... the danger is different depending on the exact details & why often laws are different based on location.

Doing double the speed limit on an open highway in the middle of nowhere, where you can see for miles in all directions and nobody is on the road
vs.
Doing double the speed limit through a school zone when children are crossing the street

Not gonna even take the time to tear this apart.

You are arguing that a round that leaves the range is not an imminent threat to anyone within its possible path??

 

[Dthomas3523]

1) I wouldnt let my kids play downrange.

2) how small are these backstops that if you miss the target somone gets shot?

3) there are many times a spotter cant see a round hit. Does that mean it left the range and hit a kid?

Do the math. How much do you have to move the rifle at the shooter to shoot 10ft over a target at 600 yds? How about 1000?

It ain’t much. Your argument is not good and it’s unsafe.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’ll let some of you guys stand outside of a range.

We’ll start slapping triggers similiar to this ND.

You can let me know afterwards how safe you felt.

 

[supercorndogs]

Not gonna even take the time to tear this apart.

You are arguing that a round that leaves the range is not an imminent threat to anyone within its possible path??

No, he is saying it is less likely someone will be in its path of harm. You are too busy being pissed off to understand what anyone is writing. As a result you are going off on wild senseless tangents, and arguing in ridiculous absolutisms.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ask if you can tag along with an EMS in an area with high violence. Or if you can observe an ER in such a city.

Once you’ve seen the real life damage these weapons (yep, they are weapons), you’ll probably take a harder line on safety.

Unless you do it at work (mil/le), we are playing a game with weapons. Start action accordingly.

 

[Yoteski]

I still don't understand how a minimum trigger weight punishes the shooter? Who do you think is getting sued if an ND results in damage to person or property? You don't think the trigger weight would come up in court as evidence? Its simply another layer of protection for match directors. Let's say we make it a 1 lb. minimum trigger pull weight. If an ND happens which results in court proceedings, civil or criminal, you can bet your ass the trigger weight will come up. If the trigger weight is found to be outside the parameters of established rules, then it's one more piece of evidence that idemnifies the match director and puts the burden on the shooter in question who had the ND.
Rules aren't there to be big bad meanies. They're there to protect shooters and match directors both; shooters from physical harm, and match directors from getting their asses sued off.

 

[lash]

I’m in the camp of those that feel that no matter why the ND happened, the penalty is and should be the same. What I see here are some trying already to game the safety aspect of the sport. This is exactly why this is now a hot subject and should have been long before now.

For safety purposes, expect that any ND, no matter how “slight” you may consider it, will be at least a stage DQ, most likely a match DQ. As soon as you start to argue or try to game the safety rules, you’ll up the consequences to the next level. That’s how it is and how it should be.

It’s quite obvious to me that those arguing against enforcement of the (already existing) ND rules are culprits themselves and need to justify in their own minds why their ND was okay to blow off. Either that or they are arm chair lawyers looking for an argument.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Your passion for safety is admirable.

I just think there is a difference in an unsafe person having a ND due to unsafe practices in an unsafe direction.

And

An otherwise safe person showing safe practices and having a ND in a safe direction.

 

[lash]

I still don't understand how a minimum trigger weight punishes the shooter? Who do you think is getting sued if an ND results in damage to person or property? You don't think the trigger weight would come up in court as evidence? Its simply another layer of protection for match directors. Let's say we make it a 1 lb. minimum trigger pull weight. If an ND happens which results in court proceedings, civil or criminal, you can bet your ass the trigger weight will come up. If the trigger weight is found to be outside the parameters of established rules, then it's one more piece of evidence that idemnifies the match director and puts the burden on the shooter in question who had the ND.
Rules aren't there to be big bad meanies. They're there to protect shooters and match directors both; shooters from physical harm, and match directors from getting their asses sued off.

Well, here’s the thing. There already are rules in place, that are not being enforced! Trust me when I say that if the existing rules are enforced and enforced evenly and consistently, trigger weights will not be the discussion anymore.

 

[lash]

Your passion for safety is admirable.

I just think there is a difference in an unsafe person having a ND due to unsafe practices in an unsafe direction.

And

An otherwise safe person showing safe practices and having a ND in a safe direction.

Yes, Johnny Cochran, there is a difference, but by the rules they are both DQs. That’s how it should be. The argument is irrelevant to the actual enforcement of the existing rules and should remain that way.

 

[Yoteski]

Just saying, show me the attorney who wouldn't bring trigger pull weight up in court, cause you can bet your bottom dollar my defense attorney will bring it up.

 

[Lowlight]

Equal enforcement under the rules.

You cannot have one set of rules based on popularity or points standing and another set of rules for everyone else.

We already have that today, and it doesn't work.

 

[Mormegil87]

That probably shouldn't be a range....

Unless it's a baffle range, then it's a moot point.

I was speaking of K&M.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Just FYI for those saying "Well his rifle was pointed down range"...

PRS 2019 Rules Pertaining to AD/NDs:
1.3.6.6 A shot which occurs before the shooter intended to shoot, regardless if the shot remains in the range span.
1.4.6 All AD/NDs will result in an immediate Match DQ.

Pretty simple DQ right?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Well there you have it. Rules are rules. Pack it up.

 

[Rugster]

Every PRS match I’ve shot treats an ND as a match DQ. Seems as though some folks are seeing something different at matches they attend. What matches are these?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Your passion for safety is admirable.

I just think there is a difference in an unsafe person having a ND due to unsafe practices in an unsafe direction.

And

An otherwise safe person showing safe practices and having a ND in a safe direction.

The otherwise safe person isn’t safe anymore. Safety is a zero sum, all or nothing game.

I catch myself walking in front of grounded rifles ALL the time at matches. We are all going to do negligent things. But we have to strive for perfection

Say for example, your next door neighbor is at home when someone breaks into his house. He shoots the invader, bullets stop and it’s over. All good. Guy was protecting himself from an asshole.

Same guy, shoots invader and either some rounds miss or go through the asshole. Put his walls/windows and kills your wife, kid, brother, friend, whoever.


Same guy, same good intentions. Do you think the innocent person or their family would consider it the same?

 

[W54/XM-388]

You are arguing that a round that leaves the range is not an imminent threat to anyone within its possible path??

Quite simply what I'm stating is the well established fact that the chances of an incident causing injury to a person vary depending on the exact circumstances. Which range from highly probable to more remote. While it's best not to have any incidents if possible, denying the statistical probabilities is incorrect.

Safety is a zero sum, all or nothing game.

Say for example, your next door neighbor is at home when someone breaks into his house. He shoots the invader, bullets stop and it’s over. All good. Guy was protecting himself from an asshole.
Same guy, shoots invader and either some rounds miss or go through the asshole. Put his walls/windows and kills your wife, kid, brother, friend, whoever.
Same guy, same good intentions. Do you think the innocent person or their family would consider it the same?

Interesting choice, let's flip it to be not civilians but folks in your profession... I don't think I need to start linking to a list of articles showing where folks in your profession were shooting at someone who was a criminal and killed someone else by accident... It happens to both civilians and LE and has tragic results, it is rare in both types of scenarios and everybody wants to try their best on all sides to make sure it never happens.

However you'll find even in that situation and on both types of cases, there will be a big difference in how the courts judge things and how the DA will argue the cases based on how dangerous a reasonable person would have judged that action to be & many other factors.

I'm not Saying that you should excuse safety violations.
But what I am saying is something like somebody carrying around a loaded rifle and having it go off right next to someone's foot is a bit bigger of a deal & also means the guy was a lot more stupid, than someone who sent a round somewhere (possibly into the berm, possibly not), by firing unexpectedly when mostly ready for the shot.

Both should be stopped, but I'm pretty sure if most people had it happen right next to them, they would say the first is way worse and way more likely to cause injury (even if both have the capability to cause injury/death or nothing at all).

 

[LawnMM]

I like the idea of a stage DQ for accountable rounds and a match DQ for the egregious stuff.

Just as an example, with plenty of people watching and policing what's happening...

How do you tell an ND where it touched off earlier than the shooter desired from a guy who slapped the trigger and missed or the guy who forgets to dial and it lands near the prior target in the same array?

Are we going to stage DQ everybody that forgets to dial? This is an easy example because he holds his hand up in the WTF gesture and you can see he was startled. It's not always going to be that easy to rule on.

If we look at the safety aspect of it, the accountability of the round, if it's seen as a miss near the target that seems like a clear stage DQ assuming it was obvious enough to call or the guy self reports it.

What if it's wet out and we can't tell where it landed? Not an ND but no accountability. Shit seeing misses with some of these 6mm's at 1400 on a dry day isn't always easy. If the targets are between vegetation and the vegetation is eating the misses where's the accountability there?

If it's blatant like dropping the rifle or somebody kicks a tripod that swings around at the squad those are easy. I think some of these other ones will be harder to see and police them.

Rather than flail at the impossible, which is what hoping everyone self reports is... impossible. The honor system doesn't work. So what do we do?

I think you can address some of it with trigger weight but arbitrary rules just make everyone miserable. If I'm safe with half a pound why do I have to shoot 1.5? I get it, LCD, but maybe there's a better way.

I think the single most directly responsible reason for all of this is the fucking stop watch. We're trying to have people do too much, too fast, while running around with a high powered rifle.

Maybe we need less retarded time constraints or reined in stage tasks with the same time we'd see less of this. If you want to make it harder, move the targets farther out, or make them smaller, or both, but having guys engage 5 targets at 5 distances from three positions in 90-120 seconds is a lot. Maybe the top guys can do it but what about the guys lawyer buddy just getting started?

I think the stages should be designed to where the task is cleanable for the hot shit guys but even the noob has enough time to finish. Hits or misses will determine the winner.

The more we rush people, IMO, the more of this we will see. It would be nice if people would restrain themselves to what they can accomplish with their level of ability but that's not what happens. People get out of their comfort zone and the wheels come off the bus.

I say loosen up the "time" aspect of the stages and focus on the marksmanship. Smaller/Farther targets, or more numerous targets with less running around. If we're going to look at the LCD as the problem, it's the running around getting people in trouble, not the marksmanship.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

The problem with this ND in particular is that the round was unaccounted for. No one knows whether it hit the berm or if it continued out of the range all together. That should strike you as a really bad thing.

This is what I don't understand. We should not be shooting at something that has the ability to leave a range. A target berm or backstop is not the end of the range. Our club range has been around since 1960. We can't shoot .338 or .50 unless there is a range officer present and gives the okay. Those rounds have the ability to exit outside club property. At one shooting position I can actually see a house way off in the distance. I'm hoping when people set up a PRS range they are taking the necessary precautions otherwise it won't be just the shooter owning a bullet that hits a house.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

The otherwise safe person isn’t safe anymore. Safety is a zero sum, all or nothing game.

I catch myself walking in front of grounded rifles ALL the time at matches. We are all going to do negligent things. But we have to strive for perfection

Say for example, your next door neighbor is at home when someone breaks into his house. He shoots the invader, bullets stop and it’s over. All good. Guy was protecting himself from an asshole.

Same guy, shoots invader and either some rounds miss or go through the asshole. Put his walls/windows and kills your wife, kid, brother, friend, whoever.


Same guy, same good intentions. Do you think the innocent person or their family would consider it the same?

Your hypothetical situation is apples and oranges.

I am in no way advocating for less safety. Or a lackadaisical aproach.

There are peoole who have unsafe practices or habbits that increase the chances of an ND and put other people at risk.

And there are people who practice safety to reduce the chances of an ND and reduce the risk of damage or injury in case an ND does happen.

You could be the safest person in the world and if a round cooks off while your lining up your shot, even if you hit a bullseye. By the rules you just had a ND/AD.

Is that equal to someone dicking around with a loaded weapon behind the firing line and shooting your hat off?

2 extremes of the spectrum considered the same under the rules. Just saying.

 

[Lowlight]

While a fun academic discussion, all the quibbling here is meaningless if the series(s) refuse to do something about it.

Clearly, there is a cross-section of shooters here that don't want to be inconvenienced by an additional layer of safety, that part is obvious by the defense put on for the indefensible. They fail to even acknowledge the issue and act like it is no big deal. Close enough is good enough in their books.

The best we can hope for is, an individual who reads this or other opinions on the topic and they call out incidents in real time forcing the MDs or the ROs to enforce the rules when the violations happen. Too often with this stuff, it's a topic of discussion after the fact.

In a strange way look at what happened with Joel who started this thread and posted the video. Nobody can accuse him of being Anti PRS yet the more he watches and films these events, the more troubled he is by the increased number of incidents and what can only be described as cover-ups to swept it under the rug. I say that because nothing has been proposed or changed, no memo has gone out on the subject to my knowledge. Instead, Joel has had to post on video his defeat in bringing light to the subject. By defeat, that means the No Big Deal Crowd has managed to twist the logic and blurs the lines, effectively killing the subject.

The spin has spun into a debate where none should exist. Now we have levels of violations of which no known shooter or popular brand should be taxed for any level of violation because it was not their intent. They were safe yesterday so any breach of safety today should not be held against them as it's not there fault. Instead it' broken down to, what if the round cooks off in the rifle not being handled.

My advice, if you see something, say something in real time, don't wait for it to be overlooked, speak up. Self-policing is the only form currently working, as the rise in the problem is just a by-product of the robust growth, in other words, nothing to see here, all part of the natural progression in the hobby.

What ifs rule the day, what if aliens come down right when I am getting ready to touch one off, I look up, tap my trigger and still hit the plate, does that count as an ND, because after all, Aliens ...

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

 

[delfuego]

I think the single most directly responsible reason for all of this is the fucking stop watch. We're trying to have people do too much, too fast, while running around with a high powered rifle.

Maybe we need less retarded time constraints or reined in stage tasks with the same time we'd see less of this. If you want to make it harder, move the targets farther out, or make them smaller, or both, but having guys engage 5 targets at 5 distances from three positions in 90-120 seconds is a lot. Maybe the top guys can do it but what about the guys lawyer buddy just getting started?

I think the stages should be designed to where the task is cleanable for the hot shit guys but even the noob has enough time to finish. Hits or misses will determine the winner.

The more we rush people, IMO, the more of this we will see. It would be nice if people would restrain themselves to what they can accomplish with their level of ability but that's not what happens. People get out of their comfort zone and the wheels come off the bus.

HALLELUJAH! Somebody finally get's it. Thanks LawnMM. Matches are turning into circus shooting and we are shocked when we see people acting like clowns. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[lash]

Your hypothetical situation is apples and oranges.

I am in no way advocating for less safety. Or a lackadaisical aproach.

There are peoole who have unsafe practices or habbits that increase the chances of an ND and put other people at risk.

And there are people who practice safety to reduce the chances of an ND and reduce the risk of damage or injury in case an ND does happen.

You could be the safest person in the world and if a round cooks off while your lining up your shot, even if you hit a bullseye. By the rules you just had a ND/AD.

Is that equal to someone dicking around with a loaded weapon behind the firing line and shooting your hat off?

2 extremes of the spectrum considered the same under the rules. Just saying.

Yes.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

 

[lash]

While a fun academic discussion, all the quibbling here is meaningless if the series(s) refuse to do something about it.

Clearly, there is a cross-section of shooters here that don't want to be inconvenienced by an additional layer of safety, that part is obvious by the defense put on for the indefensible. They fail to even acknowledge the issue and act like it is no big deal. Close enough is good enough in their books.

The best we can hope for is, an individual who reads this or other opinions on the topic and they call out incidents in real time forcing the MDs or the ROs to enforce the rules when the violations happen. Too often with this stuff, it's a topic of discussion after the fact.

In a strange way look at what happened with Joel who started this thread and posted the video. Nobody can accuse him of being Anti PRS yet the more he watches and films these events, the more troubled he is by the increased number of incidents and what can only be described as cover-ups to swept it under the rug. I say that because nothing has been proposed or changed, no memo has gone out on the subject to my knowledge. Instead, Joel has had to post on video his defeat in bringing light to the subject. By defeat, that means the No Big Deal Crowd has managed to twist the logic and blurs the lines, effectively killing the subject.

The spin has spun into a debate where none should exist. Now we have levels of violations of which no known shooter or popular brand should be taxed for any level of violation because it was not their intent. They were safe yesterday so any breach of safety today should not be held against them as it's not there fault. Instead it' broken down to, what if the round cooks off in the rifle not being handled.

My advice, if you see something, say something in real time, don't wait for it to be overlooked, speak up. Self-policing is the only form currently working, as the rise in the problem is just a by-product of the robust growth, in other words, nothing to see here, all part of the natural progression in the hobby.

What ifs rule the day, what if aliens come down right when I am getting ready to touch one off, I look up, tap my trigger and still hit the plate, does that count as an ND, because after all, Aliens ...

I will say that these discussions here the past couple months have absolutely made a difference, however small or incremental. I can tell you that our local club is now doing a number of things to refocus on everyone’s safety. Perhaps the best that we can do for now is to keep up these discussions as incidents are noticed and recorded.

I believe that there are enough people that are the reality and want things to change. As we continue to point out that it is right and correct to call the violations out, those that previously felt intimidated to report things might take heart that they are right and step forward.

Keep on moving the subject into the spotlight and we will see change.

And yes, my Mother raised an incurable optimist.

 

[lash]

Those were all safety oriented people...

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I just don't get not calling out something. It's the rule from ground handling aircraft to explosives. It only seems to be a problem with tactical bolt action style shooting with the wrong trigger for the job to not supervising weak side shots. It is called paying attention and everybody has the duty to call STOP. Even the person that took the video didn't call it out. I believe it is rampant group think within the organization. Some of the things I am seeing posted here are direct violation of the very basic safety practices. Almost as if no formal hunter safety course as a kid. Some of you guys would be sent home to try again next year crying or no crying. Parent bitching or not.

 

[sabrecross]

The fact that there are 3 pages on discussion concerning the seriousness of a ND is alarming in and of itself. I'll continue to shoot by myself on private land and stay away from the naysayers. I've seen way to many people that have been shot...

 

[regnar375]

I guess I'm getting wiser in my old age. I was about to go off for @Lowlight calling me part of the problem, i decided to read the rest of the threads and I think hes calling out someone else.

Still glad that this topic is being discussed, only good can come of it.

For anyone thinking lowlight is exaggerating about being kicked out of a tier 1 unit, your wrong. And if your allowed back on that has changed. when I was in, (when it was hard,you got the boot and were not welcomed back. I've said it several times, safety is pushed from the top down. If the commanders don't hold the privates accountable, than the problem is the commander.

@mcameron, your an ass hat. I truly hope your not some one on the line next to me.

Not that it matters, but I did the same thing two weeks ago at a local club match thst lowlight did, and that is walk off the stage. we were shooting in shit conditions. cold, wet, pouring rain and cold. got behind the gun and the fog rolled. fired one shot at a target I could barely see. saw no splash. went to second target and could see even less. I opened the bolt, dropped my mag, put the epic in and walked of. I took a zero on the stage.

SAFETY IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORTY.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

The fact that there are 3 pages on discussion concerning the seriousness of a ND is alarming in and of itself. I'll continue to shoot by myself on private land and stay away from the naysayers. I've seen way to many people that have been shot...

Shooting by yourself with privacy has its own risks. Just sayin'

 

[sabrecross]

I'll take my chances

Shooting by yourself with privacy has its own risks. Just sayin'

 

[kthomas]

The mentality that some people are expressing here is downright scary. an ND is an ND.

I really hope no one gets hurt seriously in this sport, but with some of the attitudes prevalent, I'm not so sure that isn't going to happen...

 

[Dthomas3523]

Your hypothetical situation is apples and oranges.

I am in no way advocating for less safety. Or a lackadaisical aproach.

There are peoole who have unsafe practices or habbits that increase the chances of an ND and put other people at risk.

And there are people who practice safety to reduce the chances of an ND and reduce the risk of damage or injury in case an ND does happen.

You could be the safest person in the world and if a round cooks off while your lining up your shot, even if you hit a bullseye. By the rules you just had a ND/AD.

Is that equal to someone dicking around with a loaded weapon behind the firing line and shooting your hat off?

2 extremes of the spectrum considered the same under the rules. Just saying.

If your round “cooks off” then you either:

A: pulled the trigger when you didn’t want to

Or

B: something is wrong with your equipment

Either situation is makes you unsafe for the day and you need to go home. Happens to the best of us.

Give me ANY scenario you want and my answer will always be:

Are you going to care what the situation was if you or someone you know gets shot? No, you won’t. You’ll find the negligence and you’ll go after it.

And yep, if your gun goes off when you didn’t want it to, even if you hit a bullseye.....

Take your fucking unsafe ass home and either work on your trigger control or turn the weight up. We’ll see you at the next match and laugh about it.

The next time it happens, you might not be lucky enough to hit a bullseye.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Quite simply what I'm stating is the well established fact that the chances of an incident causing injury to a person vary depending on the exact circumstances. Which range from highly probable to more remote. While it's best not to have any incidents if possible, denying the statistical probabilities is incorrect.



Interesting choice, let's flip it to be not civilians but folks in your profession... I don't think I need to start linking to a list of articles showing where folks in your profession were shooting at someone who was a criminal and killed someone else by accident... It happens to both civilians and LE and has tragic results, it is rare in both types of scenarios and everybody wants to try their best on all sides to make sure it never happens.

However you'll find even in that situation and on both types of cases, there will be a big difference in how the courts judge things and how the DA will argue the cases based on how dangerous a reasonable person would have judged that action to be & many other factors.

I'm not Saying that you should excuse safety violations.
But what I am saying is something like somebody carrying around a loaded rifle and having it go off right next to someone's foot is a bit bigger of a deal & also means the guy was a lot more stupid, than someone who sent a round somewhere (possibly into the berm, possibly not), by firing unexpectedly when mostly ready for the shot.

Both should be stopped, but I'm pretty sure if most people had it happen right next to them, they would say the first is way worse and way more likely to cause injury (even if both have the capability to cause injury/death or nothing at all).

Dangerous game differentiating safety violations. The end result is the same for all of them: someone will die if a rifle round hits them.

Again, if your kid gets hit by a rifle round from a shooter who is “safe” but touched off a light trigger......are you going to stand up and defend him because it was statistically less probable that someone flagging people with a loaded rifle???

As far as LE, I believe we should be held accountable to all our rounds. Sometimes the law provides qualified immunity and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes I agree with the immunity, and sometimes don’t.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

This is a well disciplined firing line. Notice how everyone is getting along together, that beautiful firing line, professional RO, everyone paying attention to detail, and the more than generous SDZ. So, shoot straight you bastards. Don't make a mess of it.

 

[Cjwise5]

Every PRS match I’ve shot treats an ND as a match DQ. Seems as though some folks are seeing something different at matches they attend. What matches are these?

The thing is, that most of the time these are not caught by anyone. I have a good friend who eye-witnessed a very blatant ND at a NRL match a little over a month ago. Everyone in the squad saw it, and the RO even verbally acknowledged it, yet nothing was done about that one.

This video was at a PRS match in Texas that I attended. This ND was one of three that happened in that same match that weekend.
No one is talking about the other two, because with one of them some serious politics is involved. As it is I am being made out as the bad guy on this video because the RO was getting bashed by a lot of people.
To me it seems people would rather ignore blatant safety violations rather than see an RO get bashed a little bit. She didn’t even do anything wrong, so I don’t understand why she even got dragged into it.
I have been taking so much heat over this video… But I simply can’t please everyone I guess.

 

[sabrecross]

The thing is, that most of the time these are not caught by anyone. I have a good friend who eye-witnessed a very blatant ND at a NRL match a little over a month ago. Everyone in the squad saw it, and the RO even verbally acknowledged it, yet nothing was done about that one.

This video was at a PRS match in Texas that I attended. This ND was one of three that happened in that same match that weekend.
No one is talking about the other two, because with one of them some serious politics is involved. As it is I am being made out as the bad guy on this video because the RO was getting bashed by a lot of people.
To me it seems people would rather ignore blatant safety violations rather than see an RO get bashed a little bit. She didn’t even do anything wrong, so I don’t understand why she even got dragged into it.
I have been taking so much heat over this video… But I simply can’t please everyone I guess.

Three NDs, wow. Politics- no surprise, there. Good reason not to shoot with those assholes anymore. They're more worried about gaming and they fail to take the seriousness of what they are doing into account.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Standby for the No cameras or videoing rule because the reason NDs are on the rise is everyone wants to look good for the camera and it is distracting from safety rules....

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Cjwise5]

Hi,

Standby for the No cameras or videoing rule because the reason NDs are on the rise is everyone wants to look good for the camera and it is distracting from safety rules....

Sincerely,
Theis

Yeah a few people have already brought that up. Trying to say it’s illegal to take photo and video without permission. It’s not illegal as long as you have permission from the manager or owner of the land, which I always do.

Also discussing an out-right ban on me attending matches period.

 

[sabrecross]

Hi,

Standby for the No cameras or videoing rule because the reason NDs are on the rise is everyone wants to look good for the camera and it is distracting from safety rules....

Sincerely,
Theis

It will absolutely happen. Rather than address the problem, let's hide it and continue to "game."

 

[ForgeValley]

Yeah a few people have already brought that up. Trying to say it’s illegal to take photo and video without permission. It’s not illegal as long as you have permission from the manager or owner of the land, which I always do.

Also discussing an out-right ban on me attending matches period.

Ban you? What in gods name would that solve? Who is discussing this? I feel like this is important, because if it is anyone in the PRS discussing it, that needs to be known.

 

[Sierra770]

Yeah a few people have already brought that up. Trying to say it’s illegal to take photo and video without permission. It’s not illegal as long as you have permission from the manager or owner of the land, which I always do.

Also discussing an out-right ban on me attending matches period.

Well it won't be the silliest thing you will see out there. There are Waivers out there that say you agree not to sue even instances of Gross Negligence by the MD or Facility.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Yeah a few people have already brought that up. Trying to say it’s illegal to take photo and video without permission. It’s not illegal as long as you have permission from the manager or owner of the land, which I always do.

Also discussing an out-right ban on me attending matches period.

That's shameful and hugely disappointing. People should be applauding you for having the guts to stand up and say something.