The rules of gun-safety could be better stated. I've long included the "unless you have immediate direct visual confirmation that the chamber is empty" caveat, but it's cumbersome.
That said, there is also the issue of etiquette, and a gun can be entirely safe and still somewhat alarming at certain angles. In this case, it might not be immediately evident to anyone standing behind Cruz that the breach is open and both chambers empty. That's potentially impolite, and we say that armed society is polite society for a reason. Still, it is only potentially impolite, if others in the area are familiar with carrying a firearm in this manner, then etiquette is satisfied (manners are a matter of agreed custom, not some theoretical absolute).
The confusion between etiquette and safety is understandable, even when they are at odds. I always want to make sure guns are unloaded and pointed in a safe direction in my presence, and this sometimes impels me to touch someone else's firearm without quite asking first, which is really quite rude by most standards. I think that some of the dynamics mentioned in the "Macho men" article also come into play, one person's desire to ensure safety can come across as impolite to another in many ways.
So there is a second dynamic at work here. Criticizing someone for safety violations serves little purpose after the fact, so to speak. Condemning a nominal violation of some petty rule you glean from a photo is just disrespectful. It's like commenting on bad hair and pimples...it may perfectly well be true, but it is still not polite behavior. When I observe a photo of someone displaying their boogerhook, I do think they look moronic. But I only say so if I want to be demeaning. This is proven by how infrequently I say this of hot looking chicks doing the exact same thing, which I invariably blame on the photographer (not-so-hot women don't get this exemption).
Saw that yesterday....but they wanted you to create an account in order to comment on the stupidity. Plenty of people who couldn't explain how a shotgun with the breach open was going to fire a round.
This Gizmodo (who the hell is Gizmodo?) reporter has a long ways to go to beat the Champion of firearms ignorance, who also happens to be writing most of the new gun laws in California.
That would be none other than Senate Pro Tempore Kevin 'This right here has the 'bility with a thirty caliber clip to disperse with thirty bullets within half a second. A thirty magazine clip in half a second' Deleon (D-LA).
I saw that also. I was fascinated by how dangerous they thought the gun on his shoulder was, even as the camera was looking down both barrels which were clearly empty.
I too won't comment at the site due to its account requirements, but even if I had it probably would have been useless. Let's just say the fields of those minds aren't open to planting.
While I'm far from agreeing with anything anti-2nd Amendment, in the interest of calling it like I see it, Ted Cruz has in fact violated the 2nd Universal Firearms Safety Rule, which is better stated (in my opinion of course, but it has been around in this iteration a long time): "Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cross the path of anything you're not willing to destroy." It's hard to see how Senator Cruz could always be certain of anyone's presence on any path behind him as he moves forward presumably in search of his vehicle, as clearly the day's (or morning's) hunting must be over. There are some things that a firearm instructor holds as gospel; most of them consider the four safety rules the gospel according to Jeff Cooper. The Colonel would be having a few words here with Senator Cruz, and they wouldn't all be about what load he's using to hunt pheasant. Carrying your gun this way is like using dummy ammo to practice with; eventually the live ammo migrates to the dummy ammo. Violations of these four rules kill people. That's why they're there. Doesn't mean at all I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz; but I wouldn't be walking behind him either.
It is said that Mr Thompson (he of SMG fame) would not permit workers in his plant to cover others with BARREL BLANKS which are merely pieces of pipe at that stage, so Phineas has something of a point. Clearly, he's less likely than too many others to accidentally off one of his hunting party.
When you train people in the proper use of firearms as I have done for possibly more years than you have been alive, you instill a hard-wired understanding in them for the four basic principles discussed above. When you are around professionals you will find that they won't even point a plastic training gun in anyone's direction. I'm talking about people who make their living with their skill. Now take a look at how Senator Cruz is carrying his gun. Now imagine he gets used to carrying his gun with that barrel in that condition. Now imagine one day it is not unloaded and he picks it up. He is used to having his firearm barrel backward and his training pattern and mental business are two different things. Now he has a loaded gun pointing where he knows not, and from there bad things only get worse. Go get some professional training some day and carry your gun that way. See how popular that makes you. But maybe you're the kind of guy who already knows more than his instructors. Nothing left to learn. Except of course, the fundamental principles of firearms safety.
11 comments:
D'OH!! (headdesk)
B Woodman
III-per
The rules of gun-safety could be better stated. I've long included the "unless you have immediate direct visual confirmation that the chamber is empty" caveat, but it's cumbersome.
That said, there is also the issue of etiquette, and a gun can be entirely safe and still somewhat alarming at certain angles. In this case, it might not be immediately evident to anyone standing behind Cruz that the breach is open and both chambers empty. That's potentially impolite, and we say that armed society is polite society for a reason. Still, it is only potentially impolite, if others in the area are familiar with carrying a firearm in this manner, then etiquette is satisfied (manners are a matter of agreed custom, not some theoretical absolute).
The confusion between etiquette and safety is understandable, even when they are at odds. I always want to make sure guns are unloaded and pointed in a safe direction in my presence, and this sometimes impels me to touch someone else's firearm without quite asking first, which is really quite rude by most standards. I think that some of the dynamics mentioned in the "Macho men" article also come into play, one person's desire to ensure safety can come across as impolite to another in many ways.
So there is a second dynamic at work here. Criticizing someone for safety violations serves little purpose after the fact, so to speak. Condemning a nominal violation of some petty rule you glean from a photo is just disrespectful. It's like commenting on bad hair and pimples...it may perfectly well be true, but it is still not polite behavior. When I observe a photo of someone displaying their boogerhook, I do think they look moronic. But I only say so if I want to be demeaning. This is proven by how infrequently I say this of hot looking chicks doing the exact same thing, which I invariably blame on the photographer (not-so-hot women don't get this exemption).
Saw that yesterday....but they wanted you to create an account in order to comment on the stupidity. Plenty of people who couldn't explain how a shotgun with the breach open was going to fire a round.
Why all the Confiscation talk from the Democratic National Socialist Party?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3356441/posts
Well, my favorite is still this joker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaIf9HDQaA8
--Johnathan
This Gizmodo (who the hell is Gizmodo?) reporter has a long ways to go to beat the Champion of firearms ignorance, who also happens to be writing most of the new gun laws in California.
That would be none other than Senate Pro Tempore Kevin 'This right here has the 'bility with a thirty caliber clip to disperse with thirty bullets within half a second. A thirty magazine clip in half a second' Deleon (D-LA).
Pity me. I live in California and I own guns.
I saw that also. I was fascinated by how dangerous they thought the gun on his shoulder was, even as the camera was looking down both barrels which were clearly empty.
I too won't comment at the site due to its account requirements, but even if I had it probably would have been useless. Let's just say the fields of those minds aren't open to planting.
While I'm far from agreeing with anything anti-2nd Amendment, in the interest of calling it like I see it, Ted Cruz has in fact violated the 2nd Universal Firearms Safety Rule, which is better stated (in my opinion of course, but it has been around in this iteration a long time): "Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cross the path of anything you're not willing to destroy." It's hard to see how Senator Cruz could always be certain of anyone's presence on any path behind him as he moves forward presumably in search of his vehicle, as clearly the day's (or morning's) hunting must be over. There are some things that a firearm instructor holds as gospel; most of them consider the four safety rules the gospel according to Jeff Cooper. The Colonel would be having a few words here with Senator Cruz, and they wouldn't all be about what load he's using to hunt pheasant. Carrying your gun this way is like using dummy ammo to practice with; eventually the live ammo migrates to the dummy ammo. Violations of these four rules kill people. That's why they're there. Doesn't mean at all I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz; but I wouldn't be walking behind him either.
Hey Phineas...
Explain to me EXACTLY HOW the gun could go off in the Cruz picture?
Ya, thought so.
It is said that Mr Thompson (he of SMG fame) would not permit workers in his plant to cover others with BARREL BLANKS which are merely pieces of pipe at that stage, so Phineas has something of a point. Clearly, he's less likely than too many others to accidentally off one of his hunting party.
Anonymous from Phineas:
When you train people in the proper use of firearms as I have done for possibly more years than you have been alive, you instill a hard-wired understanding in them for the four basic principles discussed above. When you are around professionals you will find that they won't even point a plastic training gun in anyone's direction. I'm talking about people who make their living with their skill. Now take a look at how Senator Cruz is carrying his gun. Now imagine he gets used to carrying his gun with that barrel in that condition. Now imagine one day it is not unloaded and he picks it up. He is used to having his firearm barrel backward and his training pattern and mental business are two different things. Now he has a loaded gun pointing where he knows not, and from there bad things only get worse. Go get some professional training some day and carry your gun that way. See how popular that makes you. But maybe you're the kind of guy who already knows more than his instructors. Nothing left to learn. Except of course, the fundamental principles of firearms safety.
Ya, I thought so.
Post a Comment