The 'Tactical Response' Response Response

In response to Tactical Response's controversial video, showing a photographer downrange during live fire, they issued a response.

The response is here, go watch it if you can stomach it.

My initial response to the Tactical Response response is as follows, and is best read as you listen to the video.

Yes, there is no true safety, there's only best effort. This was not the best effort.

"We've always been controversial" is not a defense of dangerous firearm handling.

Call detractors jabbering internet commandos, then tell them to go to your forum! Fantastic! At least we can know what to expect if we join!

So if you're not willing to fire a round when someone is in front of you, how will you ever do it? I don't know? Why don't you ask the countless people who shoot intruders or attackers having never shot a person before.

Oh! The driving comparison! Yes, that's a good one to use, particularly in the case of firearms, because firearm sports have such a great safety rate, and driving is often use for comparison. Do you, perchance, know why firearm sports enjoy such a great safety rate? BECAUSE WE DON'T SHOOT GUNS WITH PEOPLE DOWNRANGE!

IT'S SAFER TO HAVE SOMEONE DOWNRANGE!?

Ladies... Gentlemen... The shark has been jumped. This is the equivalent of radio shock jocking. Why not just say everyone who disagrees isn't a REAL WARRIOR™, and anyone who doesn't take your course won't get their REAL WARRIOR™ CERTIFICATE

But really, I guess it's OK. I mean, it's not like people are prone to flinch when firing guns.

You know, I was kind of joking about that REAL WARRIOR™ CERTIFICATE, but you are just too predictable. So you're not looking for the 10 or the 80? Do you guys have a 10/80 test you do to make sure your students won't flinch and accidentally kill your photographer? I guess that's just a chance you're willing to take.

I'm not.

The first rule of holes.