What I have experienced at shooting matches

[OnTheFly]

WOW!  This thread quickly turned from a post someone wrote to illustrate a point to the equivalent of a playground fight. 

And I'm not even a redhead. 

Fly

[jonm]

No.  But that isn't what the rule says, now does it? 

I agree and even said that earlier.

Would you point the gun at yourself?

Yes I would and I am sure others do as well. When I look down the bore of certain firearms, if I am ever unlucky enough to have to knock out a squib, when I clean the bore of my gun, anytime someone goes to holster or unholser with a dropped/offset holster, and I'm sure there are other normal occurrences that I didnt cover. Now I'm not saying to make it a habit to aim at family members but a little common sense needs to be applied to the rules of firearm safety.

[OnTheFly]

Now I'm not saying to make it a habit to aim at family members but a little common sense needs to be applied to the rules of firearm safety.

I don't think anyone here would argue that point with you, and that was SO not the point of this thread.

Fly

[JTH]

Agreed.  Regarding my appendix carry that Shawn brought up.  I don't holster the gun while sitting, only standing so that pretty much eliminates my sweeps.  I don't unholster the gun while I'm sitting either, and probably the only time I would is if I needed the gun.  Most of the time I leave the gun in the holster and slide it in my waistband.  With a good holster with retention, this keeps the gun secured and the trigger covered.  I also watch the hammer for any kind of movement whether I am holstering the gun or sliding the holster+gun inside my waistband. 

I'll note that as a person who also appendix carries (well, I'm left-handed, so it really isn't appendix carry), the placement of the holster means that I do indeed point the gun at myself more than I'd like when I'm drawing and holstering, if I'm not standing straight up--and I won't necessarily get a chance to choose how I'm standing if I have to draw for self-defense.  Therefore I practice from a number of different positions.

As such, I'm even more careful regarding the other rules of safety during those times.  It isn't okay that I'm breaking one of the safety rules---it is merely necessary.  As such, given the fact that you need to break at least two of the rules to actually damage someone/something, when I am forced to break one rule, I'm even more deliberate about the others.  I don't like it--but if I'm going to carry, that's how it has to be. 

I'll note that I don't appendix carry for competition.   

In USPSA, there is a specific rule that talks about sweeping--and makes a special case for situations during drawing and holstering:

"10.5.5.1 Exception – A match disqualification is not applicable for
sweeping of the lower extremities (below the belt) while drawing
or re-holstering of the handgun, provided that the competitor’s
fingers are clearly outside of the trigger guard. This exception
is only for holstered handguns."

...you'll note that in this case, we see again that it isn't okay to sweep---just sometimes unavoidable.  And the rule itself specifically requires more-than-normal adherence to the other rules of gun safety, in a fashion that could potentially reinstate a DQ if the extra-careful adherence is not followed.

Sweep your arm in competition?  (For USPSA, Steel Challenge, or Multigun?) 

DQ. 


And yeah, an amazing number of people have trained themselves to hold the holster with their off hand to ensure that they sweep themselves every time they holster.  And almost all of them do NOT have John's excuse.  In his case, it was the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones.  For most people, though---they simply bought a crappy holster and haven't ingrained enough safety.  Seriously, folks, if you plan on doing any shooting at all, spend the $30 on a kydex holster like the Blackhawk CQC (not the SERPA version), a Blade-Tech Revolution, or even an Uncle Mike's holster (not the Reflex, get the standard kydex belt/paddle version). 

That's for a basic range holster.  You want to work CCW, then get an upgrade from that, AFTER you've trained yourself to handle the gun (draws, holstering, loading, reloading, remedial action, and actual shooting) safely.

[jonm]

I don't think anyone here would argue that point with you, and that was SO not the point of this thread.

Fly

I was responding to your subsequent posts

[OnTheFly]

I was responding to your subsequent posts

So your point is that there are always exceptions to the rules? If so, I won't argue with that, but there is a huge difference between what the shooter was doing in my example and what you may do during firearm maintenance, dry fire practice, etc with reasonable precautions.

The discussion has progressed from people sweeping themselves with a gun and thinking nothing of it, to pointing a gun at an inanimate object while taking reasonable precautions.  I consider these to be mutually exclusive. When you have a situation where you have to break one of the fundamental rules, you take precautions.  Hopefully, they are obsessive precautions to make sure there is no bad outcome.

Fly

[JTH]

Yes I would and I am sure others do as well. When I look down the bore of certain firearms, if I am ever unlucky enough to have to knock out a squib, when I clean the bore of my gun

Huh.  If I ever look down the bore of a pistol, it is because I have taken the barrel out of the gun.  As such, I'm not looking down the bore of a gun, I'm looking into a hollow tube. 

If it was still in the gun, I wouldn't do it.  Why would I need to? If there is a squib in there, that's why I have a squib rod to check.   (Actually, I use a plastic wire tie, that way I can check from the chamber end.)

anytime someone goes to holster or unholser with a dropped/offset holster, and I'm sure there are other normal occurrences that I didnt cover. Now I'm not saying to make it a habit to aim at family members but a little common sense needs to be applied to the rules of firearm safety.

What exactly about the topic of this thread wasn't common sense, I wonder? 

"Don't point the gun at your arm.  When someone tells you that you aren't being safe because you've pointed the gun at yourself, don't be an idiot."

[jonm]

So your point is that there are always exceptions to the rules? If so, I won't argue with that, but there is a huge difference between what the shooter was doing in my example and what you may do during firearm maintenance, dry fire practice, etc with reasonable precautions.

The discussion has progressed from people sweeping themselves with a gun and thinking nothing of it, to pointing a gun at an inanimate object while taking reasonable precautions.  I consider these to be mutually exclusive. When you have a situation where you have to break one of the fundamental rules, you take precautions.  Hopefully, they are obsessive precautions to make sure there is no bad outcome.

Fly

My point was that the rule is silly but it's still a rule that has to be followed. Like I said in my first post. Then you jumped on me saying "ALWAYS treat a gun as if it's loaded." The rest of my posts were in response to that. I was pointing out that it's impossible to do it ALWAYS because certain circumstances dictate it.

Now to why I think it's silly. The gun was just checked for ammo by 2 people, mag is dropped, then hammer is dropped. At that point, to me, it's just a paper weight. Finger outside the trigger guard with no ammo in it, it can't go off. The same way that a gun inside a bag cannot go off with no ammo in it. Yet for some reason the gun in your hand is still "loaded" and the one in your bag is deemed safe. Thats why I said common sense needs to be applied.

[JTH]

My point was that the rule is silly but it's still a rule that has to be followed. 

{snip}

Now to why I think it's silly. The gun was just checked for ammo by 2 people, mag is dropped, then hammer is dropped. At that point, to me, it's just a paper weight. Finger outside the trigger guard with no ammo in it, it can't go off. The same way that a gun inside a bag cannot go off with no ammo in it. Yet for some reason the gun in your hand is still "loaded" and the one in your bag is deemed safe. Thats why I said common sense needs to be applied.

So---what you are saying is that you have no problem with how you handle a firearm (meaning in your hand) being based only on your knowledge of whether or not it is loaded?

This, by the way, is how many people each year get shot with "unloaded" firearms.

The rule is in place so that no matter what, if you have a gun in your hand, you will treat it the same way every time--with safety.  If you have a habit of acting differently "because it is empty" then at some point in time, you will make a mistake in your knowledge of whether or not it is empty.  Hopefully that mistake will not be catastrophic. 

At USPSA, Steel Challenge, and Multigun matches, that mistake will not be made.

[OnTheFly]

Now to why I think it's silly. The gun was just checked for ammo by 2 people, mag is dropped, then hammer is dropped. At that point, to me, it's just a paper weight. Finger outside the trigger guard with no ammo in it, it can't go off. The same way that a gun inside a bag cannot go off with no ammo in it. Yet for some reason the gun in your hand is still "loaded" and the one in your bag is deemed safe. Thats why I said common sense needs to be applied.

I work with people like you.  My job is to train and evaluate others in safe compliance with company policy, federal regulations, and aircraft limitations.  Inevitably there is that small group of people who think that they should do things a certain way which is contrary to years of evidence which proves them wrong.  Comparatively, if you go to any reputable firearms school, I doubt they will consider acceptable what you think is no big deal.  On any given day when a person is not fatigued and/or distracted, people can perform reasonably.  However, when fatigue, distractions, or other factors come into play, the individuals performance suffers UNLESS they maintain standards.

It is no different with gun handling.  The purpose of the rules is not to establish a set of fundamentals that cover all situations and guarantee safety individually.  That would be impossible.  What each rule does do is put up a wall of swiss cheese, and as you know, swiss cheese has holes.  These holes will allow errors through.  The hope is that the holes in each of the rules (swiss cheese) never align to allow an error to bypass all layers of cheese.  The same was true when I used to instruct in skydiving, and would be true in any higher risk sport...like shooting.

There is a huge difference between a firearm in the hand that is "unloaded" with a trigger finger that can have its own mind and one that is secured in a container.  Unless you are talking about throwing the gun in a container with a bunch of loose material and then jostling it around.  Personally, I would prefer that the gun were placed in a good holster, but the rules of the Lincoln range do not allow guns to be open carried in holsters.

So in the face of empirical evidence, you will continue to do what you think is reasonable.  It does not appear that any common sense in this thread will sway you.

Fly

[jonm]

whoa now.  You cant work with people like me if you can't understand what I am trying to say. If you read the first line I typed, I said " it's still a rule that has to be followed". Just because I dont agree with the rules, doesnt mean I dont follow them. I dont believe I should be forced to register my handguns with the city of Omaha, but I do it anyway because it's the law. There is a huge difference between ignoring and dis-agreeing.

If you go on to finish reading what I said, I am talking about that specific instance. Not during the course of fire, not dry fire practice on the dog, not any other time. You two are taking my statements and assuming I mean to apply them to every situation.

This, by the way, is how many people each year get shot with "unloaded" firearms.

Can you link me to a story where a competitor finished a run, removed his magazine, cleared his weapon, R/O said he was clear, closed the slide, put the hammer down, then shot themself.

It is no different with gun handling.  The purpose of the rules is not to establish a set of fundamentals that cover all situations and guarantee safety individually.  That would be impossible.  What each rule does do is put up a wall of swiss cheese, and as you know, swiss cheese has holes.  These holes will allow errors through.  The hope is that the holes in each of the rules (swiss cheese) never align to allow an error to bypass all layers of cheese.  The same was true when I used to instruct in skydiving, and would be true in any higher risk sport...like shooting.

Fly

EXACTLY my point. Common sense needs to be applied. If not, you would not be allowed to draw or reholster from a dropped/offset holster because as soon as you do, the gun is pointed at a body part.  Or you cant have any cant to your holster as it would break the 180* during draw and reholstering.

Again, I agree with the fact that in any type of USPSA match, it should be a disqualification. It is black and white in the rule book. I am just saying that it is a silly reason for a disqualification.

[OnTheFly]

I dont believe I should be forced to register my handguns with the city of Omaha, but I do it anyway because it's the law.

Comparing a regulatory requirement established by anti-gun politicians to rules established after considering the history of gun accidents is hardly relevant.  You follow the law because of the potential civil penalties or disobey them to protest them.  You follow safety rules because it is the prudent thing to do.

I am just saying that it is a silly reason for a disqualification.

And this is the crux of our disagreement.  I say what the shooter did is an unsafe practice, and that a correction from an RO is reason for them to think about their actions.  Your contention is that it was not an unsafe act because the gun was "unloaded". 

My swiss cheese analogy was a perfect explanation of why you follow, as much as possible, each of the rules all of the time.  This means that none of the rules is ever "silly".  I don't know your history, but I have considerable experience with "silly" rules, and the results of willful disobedience.  Many aviation accidents can be explained by the chain of broken rules interspersed with human errors.  Make one mistake...no big deal.  Break one rule and combine that with mistakes...this is when accidents happen.  So the best and safest practice is to INTENTIONALLY follow all the rules.  You will make mistakes, but the facts prove that this is the only way to break the chain of events that lead to an accident.

ETA:

EXACTLY my point. Common sense needs to be applied. If not, you would not be allowed to draw or reholster from a dropped/offset holster because as soon as you do, the gun is pointed at a body part.  Or you cant have any cant to your holster as it would break the 180* during draw and reholstering.

I agree that common sense must be applied.  Dry fire practice is an example where you may point the gun at something that you really don't want to destroy.  This is when you take obsessive precautions to make up for the rule you are violating.  However, when you CAN apply the rules you DO...without exception.  If that is silly, then my swiss cheese analogy is lost on you.

Fly

[JTH]

This, by the way, is how many people each year get shot with "unloaded" firearms.

Can you link me to a story where a competitor finished a run, removed his magazine, cleared his weapon, R/O said he was clear, closed the slide, put the hammer down, then shot themself.

Don't need to.  After all, the comment of mine that you quoted was directly after I said:  "So---what you are saying is that you have no problem with how you handle a firearm (meaning in your hand) being based only on your knowledge of whether or not it is loaded?" ----and it directly was in response to that.

And again, you seem to be missing the point of the discussion.  You seem to feel that you may handle a gun differently based on whether or not you "know" it is unloaded.

I disagree strongly. 

Literally, many people get shot each year with guns that were being handled by people who "knew" they are unloaded. 

I don't recall anywhere in the normal rules of gun safety a caveat that says "unless, of course, you know they are unloaded."  Maybe you use a different set of rules---and that's fine.  I'm not in charge of you, nor am I in charge of anyone's private life but my own.

I am happy, however, that in competitions people are required to safely handle firearms at all times, not merely when they think the gun is loaded.  (The same is true in any class I teach.  Where, I suppose, I AM in charge of other people's lives.  And they have to do it my way.)

Everyone is of course able to do things their own way on their own time.  But I personally don't particularly want to shoot with someone whose safety behavior is based on whether or not they think the gun is unloaded.  If they'd point the gun at themselves, who knows if they'd point it at anyone else?  After all, "it is unloaded." 

If your response to that is "I wouldn't point it at YOU!" ---why not?  You'd point it at yourself.   How is it different?

Jonm, you are saying the rule is silly---correct me if I'm wrong here, but the crux of why you think this rule is silly is that numerous people have checked the gun, therefore it must be unloaded, so it is silly to DQ someone for sweeping themselves with an unloaded gun, because it isn't unsafe.  Yes?

Here's how I look at that: this person doesn't have sufficient good practice with the rules of safe gun handling to not point the gun at himself.  Therefore, we need to stop this person before he shoots himself later during this match/class/practice session.

I don't care if the gun is loaded or not.  If you have insufficient muzzle control such that you point it at a human being (whether yourself or others), then you shouldn't be shooting at that time.  Go back home and practice safe gun handling before you come back.

You seem to say that the gun being unloaded makes the shooter's actions no longer demonstrative of unsafe gun handling.  I disagree.  The actions haven't changed.  He just was lucky that in this case the gun wasn't loaded and he didn't pull the trigger.  So, he didn't break OTHER safe gun handling rules.  Just the one about not pointing the gun at himself.

[abbafandr]

Having said all of that -- we NEED MORE RO'S!  Anyone who is shooting the matches with the ENPS at ENGC and are not ROs really should take the class.

I see where you're coming from.  I don't know if I would be comfortable with being a RO.  That being said, I will show up early and help set up; stay late and help tear down; design a stage occasionally; and when competing, help with all the stuff like pasting, painting and resetting targets.

[bkoenig]

Through all of this I just keep remembering Nick sweeping Sean with the ketchup bottle a couple of weeks ago and declaring it was "big boy rules".

 

[OnTheFly]

Through all of this I just keep remembering Nick sweeping Sean with the ketchup bottle a couple of weeks ago and declaring it was "big boy rules".

 

I missed that.  Was he DQ'd?  He should have been.  I don't care if there was ketchup in the bottle or not. 

Fly

[bkoenig]

We're just lucky it was a ban-compliant bottle and not one of those evil high capacity assault bottles.  It might have gone off on its own and sprayed everyone at the table.

Actually now that I think about it, I think it was Sean who declared it Big Boy Rules.  So we probably should have DQ'd both of them and confiscated their burgers.