| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking The Rules |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 12/11/07 5:28:13 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GunGeek just posted a comment on my post about the idiot who shot a range employee. My initial thought was just to reply, but I think this is good material for a post of its own.
"They are cleverly designed so that if you break one of them, there is no chance of someone getting hurt."
Uh, don't you mean if you break "none" of them? Or am I just missing the sarcasm?
No sarcasm, I actually meant "one of them." Ideally, you break zero, but we are human, that's why the rules were so well engineered.
If you only break #1, then you are an idiot, but your finger wasn't on the trigger so the gun did not fire and you didn't scare the crap out of someone by pointing a loaded or unloaded gun at them.
If you only break #2, then you are an idiot, but the muzzle was pointed in a safe direction when you boogerhooked the bangswitch.
If you only break #3, then you are an idiot, but your finger wasn't on the trigger when the gun swept across a number of bystanders.
If you only break #4, then the rifle did not fire past the deer and into the schoolyard, because your finger wasn't on the trigger.
Only one broken, no casualties.
The problem comes into play when you break two or more.
If you break one and two, then a bullet is going somewhere, but in a safe direction per rule three.
If you break two and three, then you are really fucked if you sneeze.
If you break two and four, then you better pray that nobody was downrange.
I think you get the point. You want to be conscious of all four rules at all times, but the reason there are four instead of two or three is to add an extra layer of safety.
When I teach a beginner, I stress all four rules, but I explain this "layer of safety" concept, so they don't get nervous and change their mind about learning to shoot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "WVCDL's Shopping List" | | "WooHoo!" > |
|
|
|
|
