PA Junior firefighter shot, killed at fire station

[Porthole 15]

This happened yesterday afternoon and another firefighter was charged with homicide last night.

 

Allegedly a Glock 17 being removed from the holster 

 

http://www.firehouse.com/news/12282436/republic-fire-co-junior-firefighter-shot-fire-captain-charged-firefighter-news

[Zeke 5,504]

Nd? Still involuntary manslaughter.

[Zeke 5,504]

And this is why I'm not a rilly big fan of " trigger safety " or striker fired.

 

I know, it's my own software issue. Booger hooker off the trigger.

[T Bill 649]

I am beginning to wonder about Glocks and carrying one in the chamber.  Seems we hear about this type of ND more often than it should be. I am not talking about booger hook syndrome, either.  There seem to be something about things getting inside the trigger guard other than the booger hooks way too often for me.

[High Exposure 5,661]

He broke all 4 commonly accepted rules for firearm safety.

 

• He treated a loaded gun as if it was unloaded

• He pointed it at something he was not authorized to destroy or kill

• His finger was on the trigger

• He was not aware of his target, foreground, backstop, or changing conditions

 

If he would have followed one, just ONE, of the the four firearms safety rules, this wouldn't have happened.

 

Don't blame the hardware for a software issue.

 

The average human hand can exert around 38lbs of pressure in an unintentional flinch or startle response. The only hardware solution to this is a 39lb trigger.

 

NDs have happened since before striker fired pistols. They happen to revolvers, semi-autos with safeties and DA guns. They will continue to happen as long as people are careless and disregard the safety rules. A foreign object in a trigger guard will cause any gun to fire.

 

To the reporter - A "Glock model 17.9mm"? WOW! That is either a big (17.9mm) or a small (.9mm) bullet!

[Rob0115 1,105]

He broke all 4 commonly accepted rules for firearm safety.

 

• He treated a loaded gun as if it was unloaded

• He pointed it at something he was not authorized to destroy or kill

• His finger was on the trigger

• He was not aware of his target, foreground, backstop, or changing conditions

 

If he would have followed one, just ONE, of the the four firearms safety rules, this wouldn't have happened.

 

Don't blame the hardware for a software issue.

 

The average human hand can exert around 38lbs of pressure in an unintentional flinch or startle response. The only hardware solution to this is a 39lb trigger.

 

NDs have happened since before striker fired pistols. They happen to revolvers, semi-autos with safeties and DA guns. They will continue to happen as long as people are careless and disregard the safety rules. A foreign object in a trigger guard will cause any gun to fire.

 

To the reporter a "Glock model 17.9mm" - that is either a big (17.9mm) or a small (.9mm) bullet!

I've exhausted my like budget for today, but consider this "liked".  

 

AnywayI can buy some extra likes on the site?  If folks are doing a good job posting I think they deserve a like.  

[Rob0115 1,105]

And this is why I'm not a rilly big fan of " trigger safety " or striker fired.

 

I know, it's my own software issue. Booger hooker off the trigger.

Yes keep your finger off the trigger and uh yes don't pick your nose.  I'm sure plenty of accidents have happened with guns that have safeties.  Only one safety matters.  If you can't control the gun and your finger (and not pick your nose either) perhaps you shouldn't be handling a gun let alone carrying one.  Completely avoidable and this guys lack of wits has stained our community.  

[High Exposure 5,661]

Completely avoidable and this guys lack of wits has stained our community.

This.

 

He has forgotten the face of his father.

[Zeke 5,504]

He broke all 4 commonly accepted rules for firearm safety.

 

• He treated a loaded gun as if it was unloaded

• He pointed it at something he was not authorized to destroy or kill

• His finger was on the trigger

• He was not aware of his target, foreground, backstop, or changing conditions

 

If he would have followed one, just ONE, of the the four firearms safety rules, this wouldn't have happened.

 

Don't blame the hardware for a software issue.

 

The average human hand can exert around 38lbs of pressure in an unintentional flinch or startle response. The only hardware solution to this is a 39lb trigger.

 

NDs have happened since before striker fired pistols. They happen to revolvers, semi-autos with safeties and DA guns. They will continue to happen as long as people are careless and disregard the safety rules. A foreign object in a trigger guard will cause any gun to fire.

 

To the reporter a "Glock model 17.9mm" - that is either a big (17.9mm) or a small (.9mm) bullet!

I'll call this fair

[Newtonian 453]

He broke all 4 commonly accepted rules for firearm safety.

 

• He treated a loaded gun as if it was unloaded

• He pointed it at something he was not authorized to destroy or kill

• His finger was on the trigger

• He was not aware of his target, foreground, backstop, or changing conditions

 

If he would have followed one, just ONE, of the the four firearms safety rules, this wouldn't have happened.

 

Agreed 100% his fault but you only mention "software." The gun has no safety, no DA. Just as a 39 lb trigger thwarts a 38 lb pull, an 11 lb trigger prevents firing when you're only pulling 5.5 lbs (assuming he didn't "fix" the trigger). Not to mention the fact that Glocks feel like toys and are butt ugly.

[High Exposure 5,661]

Ok. Subjective qualities of Glocks aside....

 

It's still a software issue. He violated rule 3. If he had been following rule 1, his finger pressing on the trigger should have produced a click instead of a bang. If he followed rules 2, and/or 4 his ND would have gone into the floor, wall, or anyplace other than this Jr Firefighters body.

 

Bottom line - The gun went off because that guy pressed the trigger when he shouldn't have. Doesn't matter if the gun had a 1/2lb trigger or a 100lb trigger, if his finger didn't touch it, it wouldn't go bang. Additionally, if it wasn't pointed at this Jr Firefighter, it wouldn't have hit him in the chest. It is simple, if this guy would have engaged his brain while carrying a gun, this tragedy would not have occurred.

 

It's called a negligent discharge for a reason. Negligence implies a shirking of responsibility. Hardware doesn't have responsibility - people do.

 

The only valid excuse to this incident is if he meant to kill this kid - that he purposefully drew a gun he knew was loaded, pointed it at something he wanted to destroy, deliberately placed his finger in the trigger, considered his surroundings and pressed. If that wasn't the case, if this was not a purposeful act, than he needs to own this 100%.

 

And here is the important part - As a community we have to be relentless when it comes to calling out shooters that make these mistakes. We need to assure non shooters that we take safety seriously and assuage their fears of guns randomly going off and killing kids, placing the blame squarely on the guy operating the gun. The second we start blaming the tools, the anti-gunners win as that's their argument - "Guns kill". Our appropriate and correct response is "No, guns are a tool, they can't make decisions and lack the ability to think. People kill." And that is true even in cases like this that are a tragic mistake. The gun didn't kill this kid, the gun owner did.

 

That being said - there have been plenty NDs before 1988.

 

Revolvers have no safeties, and there has been a couple of NDs with them.

 

DA/SA pistols have NDs often when the operator forgets to de-cock prior to holstering. Shooters forget to place guns on safe. They forget to make sure guns are unloaded. These are all software issues.

 

Until they make a gun with an onboard AI that has an IFF function that won't let the fun fire unless it is guaranteed to hit a verifiable threat to whomever possess the gun, there will be NDs. Whether or not that negligence kills someone depends solely on whether or not the operator of that weapon has engaged his brain and followed the remaining safety rules.

[jm1827 284]

Ok. Subjective qualities of Glocks aside....

 

It's still a software issue. He violated rule 3. If he had been following rule 1, his finger pressing on the trigger should have produced a click instead of a bang. If he followed rules 2, and/or 4 his ND would have gone into the floor, wall, or anyplace other than this Jr Firefighters body.

 

Bottom line - The gun went off because that guy pressed the trigger when he shouldn't have. Doesn't matter if the gun had a 1/2lb trigger or a 100lb trigger, if his finger didn't touch it, it wouldn't go bang. Additionally, if it wasn't pointed at this Jr Firefighter, it wouldn't have hit him in the chest. It is simple, if this guy would have engaged his brain while carrying a gun, this tragedy would not have occurred.

 

It's called a negligent discharge for a reason. Negligence implies a shirking of responsibility. Hardware doesn't have responsibility - people do.

 

The only valid excuse to this incident is if he meant to kill this kid - that he purposefully drew a gun he knew was loaded, pointed it at something he wanted to destroy, deliberately placed his finger in the trigger, considered his surroundings and pressed. If that wasn't the case, if this was not a purposeful act, than he needs to own this 100%.

 

And here is the important part - As a community we have to be relentless when it comes to calling out shooters that make these mistakes. We need to assure non shooters that we take safety seriously and assuage their fears of guns randomly going off and killing kids, placing the blame squarely on the guy operating the gun. The second we start blaming the tools, the anti-gunners win as that's their argument - "Guns kill". Our appropriate and correct response is "No, guns are a tool, they can't make decision and lack the ability to think. People kill." And that is true even in cases like this that are a tragic mistake. The gun didn't kill this kid, the gun owner did.

 

That being said - there have been plenty NDs before 1988.

 

Revolvers have no safeties, and there has been a couple of NDs with them.

 

DA/SA pistols have NDs often when the operator forgets to de-cock prior to holstering. Shooters forget to place guns on safe. They forget to make sure guns are unloaded. These are all software issues.

 

Until they make a gun with an onboard AI that has an IFF function that won't let the fun fire unless it is guaranteed to hit a verifiable threat to whomever possess the gun, there will be NDs. Whether or not that negligence kills someone depends solely on whether or not the operator of that weapon has engaged his brain and followed the remaining safety rules.

Very well said, thank you sir!

[Porthole 15]

I'm sure plenty of accidents have happened with guns that have safeties.  

 

As responsible firearm owners I do believe it is also up to us to push the correct adage with incidents such as this. It was not an accident, it was a failure to follow the rules. My wife hears this from me every time it comes up on TV. As mentioned several times already, had the 21 year old followed any of the 4 rules, the 16 year old would be alive.

 

it wouldn't have hit him in the chest. 

 

 

 

Being a fire fighter, I have gotten numerous news feeds on this, several reported that he was hit in the face.

[Newtonian 453]

Ok. Subjective qualities of Glocks aside....

 

It's still a software issue. He violated rule 3. If he had been following rule 1, his finger pressing on the trigger should have produced a click instead of a bang. If he followed rules 2, and/or 4 his ND would have gone into the floor, wall, or anyplace other than this Jr Firefighters body.

 

Bottom line - The gun went off because that guy pressed the trigger when he shouldn't have. Doesn't matter if the gun had a 1/2lb trigger or a 100lb trigger, if his finger didn't touch it, it wouldn't go bang. Additionally, if it wasn't pointed at this Jr Firefighter, it wouldn't have hit him in the chest. It is simple, if this guy would have engaged his brain while carrying a gun, this tragedy would not have occurred.

 

It's called a negligent discharge for a reason. Negligence implies a shirking of responsibility. Hardware doesn't have responsibility - people do.

 

The only valid excuse to this incident is if he meant to kill this kid - that he purposefully drew a gun he knew was loaded, pointed it at something he wanted to destroy, deliberately placed his finger in the trigger, considered his surroundings and pressed. If that wasn't the case, if this was not a purposeful act, than he needs to own this 100%.

 

And here is the important part - As a community we have to be relentless when it comes to calling out shooters that make these mistakes. We need to assure non shooters that we take safety seriously and assuage their fears of guns randomly going off and killing kids, placing the blame squarely on the guy operating the gun. The second we start blaming the tools, the anti-gunners win as that's their argument - "Guns kill". Our appropriate and correct response is "No, guns are a tool, they can't make decisions and lack the ability to think. People kill." And that is true even in cases like this that are a tragic mistake. The gun didn't kill this kid, the gun owner did.

 

That being said - there have been plenty NDs before 1988.

 

Revolvers have no safeties, and there has been a couple of NDs with them.

 

DA/SA pistols have NDs often when the operator forgets to de-cock prior to holstering. Shooters forget to place guns on safe. They forget to make sure guns are unloaded. These are all software issues.

 

Until they make a gun with an onboard AI that has an IFF function that won't let the fun fire unless it is guaranteed to hit a verifiable threat to whomever possess the gun, there will be NDs. Whether or not that negligence kills someone depends solely on whether or not the operator of that weapon has engaged his brain and followed the remaining safety rules.

As mentioned it was 100% his fault. It's never the gun's fault ever. I'm only including among the decisions or behaviors that could have resulted in no discharge carrying a single action pistol cocked and with a round in the chamber. Which given his stupidity and carelessness sounds like a very bad idea in hindsight. You yourself pointed out that if you don't squeeze the trigger hard enough nothing happens. I don't feel like having an argument about this but it should be obvious that if he had to pull 11 lbs this incident had a significantly lower chance of happening. 

 

I'm not arguing that everybody in the world should carry like a pussy like I have on the rare occasions I've had the opportunity. Only that the way he carried is probably -- guessing here -- 10x riskier than DA for an ND in a day to day situation, and that DA is only very slightly riskier to personal safety in the very rare instance where you'd have to defend yourself in a fire station. 

 

If you carry every day, which I hope everyone who can does, you have to weigh the relative risks.

 

"But I follow the rules of gun safety 100% of the time!"

 

Bullshit. Even the best trained shooter in the world makes mistakes. Mere mortals more so.

[Cereza 106]

I'd like to hear from the police instead of assuming that the fire captain did or did not do something. Police still haven't said if they believe the shooting was accidental (negligent) or intentional.

 

There's very little information in the news report, speaking of which, "Glock model 17.9 millimeter caliber pistol" is a quote from the criminal complaint. The female reporter says "9mm" in the video, so either there was a transcription error when the quote was posted to the Action News website (probably) or it was incorrectly typed in the complaint.

[High Exposure 5,661]

If you carry every day, which I hope everyone who can does, you have to weigh the relative risks.

 

"But I follow the rules of gun safety 100% of the time!"

 

Bullshit. Even the best trained shooter in the world makes mistakes. Mere mortals more so.

 

I just want to address this statement because it is something I hear often, and while it is accurate, it is not an insurmountable problem.

 

Yes, it is impossible to be as vigilant as you should be 100% of the time while carrying or handling a firearm. This is flat unadulterated truth.

 

Those that have come before us learned in blood and tears that there needed to be guidelines to the safe and proper handling of firearms. There were multiple many faceted sets of rules for firearms safety out there. Col. Jeff Cooper, described by many to be the father of modern gun fighting techniques distilled the many guidelines circulating through the shooting community and combined them with his knowledge of gun handling and instruction into 4 simple rules designed to keep shooters and those around shooters safe while in the presence of firearms. These have become the standard "Firearms Safety Rules" that you see posted at every range, printed on every range safety waiver and spouted by every firearms instructor out there.

 

In some form or another they are as follows:

- Always treat a weapon as if it is loaded, until you safely verify that it is unloaded

- Don't point a weapon at anything you are not ready, willing, and justified to destroy or kill

- Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready and justified to fire

- Be aware of your threat, your backstop, your foreground, and surrounding conditions at all times

 

Now here is the beauty of the now universally accepted four rules - they are overlapping and redundant. The commonly accepted goal is to follow all four whenever a firearm is present, however, as long as you follow just 1 of them, doesn't matter which one, you can avoid tragedy and have an embarassing cautionary tale instead of a heart wrenching tragedy.

 

I think a lot of instructors/teachers do shooters a disservice by glossing over the safety brief. Just reiterating the rules isn't enough. You need to spend time explaining the meaning behind the rules. Take a moment to illuminate for your students the checks and balances built into the rules. Explain the difference between dangerous and unsafe - it is an important distinction when conducting firearms training, especially when training folks that plan on carrying a firearms for self defense. Explain when it is ok to be unsafe, and when it is ok to be dangerous.

 

I do carry every day. I always carry some form of Glock .40S&W. Whatever Glock I currently carry, I carry with a round in the chamber followed by a loaded mag. I also follow the four rules at all times to the best of my ability. If I make a mistake and break one rule, I have the other three to back them up. It isn't hard, it isn't an inconvenience, it isn't stressful or taxing in any way. I don't fear the gun going off, I don't fear an ND. It's almost zen when you are comfortable with your carry method and your firearm.

[Upfitter21 7]

A sad situation that hits me personally being a vollie FF and started out as an Explorer/Junior as well.  I don't know why the Cpt was carrying in station, and why he broke the rules of safety.  I have no qualms that Glocks have no external safety as they are extremely safe weapons and they will only fire if you yourself causes them to fire.
Always a good reminder about being safe with a weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTalnzcO0xk

[Purple Patrick 638]

I just want to address this statement because it is something I hear often, and while it is accurate, it is not an insurmountable problem.

 

Yes, it is impossible to be as vigilant as you should be 100% of the time while carrying or handling a firearm. This is flat unadulterated truth.

 

Those that have come before us learned in blood and tears that there needed to be guidelines to the safe and proper handling of firearms. There were multiple many faceted sets of rules for firearms safety out there. Col. Jeff Cooper, described by many to be the father of modern gun fighting techniques distilled the many guidelines circulating through the shooting community and combined them with his knowledge of gun handling and instruction into 4 simple rules designed to keep shooters and those around shooters safe while in the presence of firearms. These have become the standard "Firearms Safety Rules" that you see posted at every range, printed on every range safety waiver and spouted by every firearms instructor out there.

 

In some form or another they are as follows:

- Always treat a weapon as if it is loaded, until you safely verify that it is unloaded

- Don't point a weapon at anything you are not ready, willing, and justified to destroy or kill

- Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready and justified to fire

- Be aware of your threat, your backstop, your foreground, and surrounding conditions at all times

 

Now here is the beauty of the now universally accepted four rules - they are overlapping and redundant. The commonly accepted goal is to follow all four whenever a firearm is present, however, as long as you follow just 1 of them, doesn't matter which one, you can avoid tragedy and have an embarassing cautionary tale instead of a heart wrenching tragedy.

 

I think a lot of instructors/teachers do shooters a disservice by glossing over the safety brief. Just reiterating the rules isn't enough. You need to spend time explaining the meaning behind the rules. Take a moment to illuminate for your students the checks and balances built into the rules. Explain the difference between dangerous and unsafe - it is an important distinction when conducting firearms training, especially when training folks that plan on carrying a firearms for self defense. Explain when it is ok to be unsafe, and when it is ok to be dangerous.

 

I do carry every day. I always carry some form of Glock .40S&W. Whatever Glock I currently carry, I carry with a round in the chamber followed by a loaded mag. I also follow the four rules at all times to the best of my ability. If I make a mistake and break one rule, I have the other three to back them up. It isn't hard, it isn't an inconvenience, it isn't stressful or taxing in any way. I don't fear the gun going off, I don't fear an ND. It's almost zen when you are comfortable with your carry method and your firearm.

So to go on a completely random tangent(because I have conflicting emotions) do you think people should have THE MINIMAL amount of training to carry a firearm or do you thing "constitutional carry" is a right everyone has?

 

this signature exceeds the 15 character capacity count

[Newtonian 453]

Hey guys I'm not criticizing anything or anyone. I'm not in a position to as I'm probably the least experienced person in this thread. I was just raising the point that certain firearms are inherently more prone to that type of accident than others, all things being equal. If I had a choice between having that gun in that exact situation pointed at me, or a heavy-trigger DA pistol I'd take the latter sight unseen and so would you. The very slight delay in the first shot -- 0.1 second? -- in a defense situation is a fair trade for me. I'm 99% fine with it not being ok for you. I'd be 100% fine if the shooter were the only person in these situations who takes a round to the face.

 

I'm sure with more training or the right to carry I'd think differently. One thing is certain: we all cringe when we hear stories like this don't we? Just think what goes through the antis little brains when they read this stuff. Weinberg is probably screaming, "SEE!"

 

But it's hard to argue an absolutist 2nd Amendment position, which I hold, when we know that some people, obviously this guy, can buy a gun he's not qualified to use around other human beings. Personally I believe the benefits of being armed, nation-wide, more than outweigh this rare tragedy (about 500 per year vs. about 80,000 accidental deaths excluding ODs and fires, and 100s of 1000s of defensive firearm incidents).

 

But try arguing that to the kid's mother, who answered the phone that night, or the father who had to identify his son's body with a big chunk of the head missing.

[High Exposure 5,661]

The 2A should not be restricted by training requirements. That being said, you are responsible for what happens when you handle a firearm. If a mistake is made, you need to own it. If you are untrained and something happens it is fully on you and your decision to be untrained.

 

I personally feel every gun owner should want to have a level of training that would enable them to own and handle firearms in a manner that would ensure their own safety and the safety of those around them. That includes using them decisively and appropriately as a weapon for protection and as a tool for recreation and competition. But I know I can't make others feel that way. Training appropriate to your task would enhance anyone, regardless of your background. Anyone resistant to that idea probably wouldn't get much out of any training they attended anyway.

 

Ultimately, it is incumbent on every firearm owner to make sure they have the training they feel is adequate to own firearms and use them safely. For some that is a life of learning. For others a single class will suffice and for others still, they know everything already and don't feel training is necessary for them.

[Newtonian 453]

People should be free to do anything they want provided they are the sole victims of possible bad consequences. That's not always the case, which is why societies sometimes intervene through laws and regulations. Note laws against drunk driving vs. drunk rock climbing. "My bad" rings awfully hollow when you kill somebody's 16 year old. "Owning" the consequences doesn't mean shit. It's not even an empty saying, it's total gibberish. Gun owners should stop using that expression. We could boil the shooter in molten lead, empty his bank account, and it won't bring that kid back. The killer doesn't "own" a goddamned thing.

 

Of course government, being what it is, is prone to over react. You need a license to fly a passenger jet, perform surgery, do plumbing, cut someone's hair, in some states to give ordinary advice, and even to open a lemonade stand. Crazy.

 

I'm not advocating mandatory anything, just providing food for thought.

[NJGF 375]

One major difference: The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment.

[Zeke 5,504]

One major difference: The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment.

The 1st does not protect slander.

[Zeke 5,504]

The 2A should not be restricted by training requirements. That being said, you are responsible for what happens when you handle a firearm. If a mistake is made, you need to own it. If you are untrained and something happens it is fully on you and your decision to be untrained.

 

I personally feel every gun owner should want to have a level of training that would enable them to own and handle firearms in a manner that would ensure their own safety and the safety of those around them. That includes using them decisively and appropriately as a weapon for protection and as a tool for recreation and competition. But I know I can't make others feel that way. Training appropriate to your task would enhance anyone, regardless of your background. Anyone resistant to that idea probably wouldn't get much out of any training they attended anyway.

 

Ultimately, it is incumbent on every firearm owner to make sure they have the training they feel is adequate to own firearms and use them safely. For some that is a life of learning. For others a single class will suffice and for others still, they know everything already and don't feel training is necessary for them.

Well put.

And I would add the market full of choices that an individual can feel comfortable with.

[NJGF 375]

The 1st does not protect slander.

 

Not quite the same thing. Bad acts have consequences. Slander is usually not a crime but a tort that you can be sued for. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that people somehow feel can be abridged before a bad act is done. I have a constitutional right and if I abuse it and commit a crime then I should be punished. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Same pasta, different gravy

[Hairless_Ape 76]

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the story of a negligent discharge while unholstering the weapon. When that happens someone gets shot in the leg/foot or the floor gets a new vent hole. It doesn't result in someone getting shot it the face. This immature little turd was showing off when he shot that child. I won't be surprised if it turns out that he's owned the firearm for less than a month.

[Newtonian 453]

Not quite the same thing. Bad acts have consequences. Slander is usually not a crime but a tort that you can be sued for. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that people somehow feel can be abridged before a bad act is done. I have a constitutional right and if I abuse it and commit a crime then I should be punished. 

In most of the country the 2nd A is the only right remaining. Speech is legal but it gets you fired almost anywhere. The courts are forever giving police and gov'l search and surveillance powers. Double jeopardy? You can be tried multiple times and for multiple crimes constituting the same action, e.g. "conspiracy." Plus civil, state, federal charges. Cops violate the 5th all the time. Speedy trial? Have they tried that guy from Sandy Hook yet? Try telling the judge you want a trial by jury for a $70 traffic ticket. They'll charge you hundreds for the privilege and find you guilty even if you brought up Jesus Christ as a witness. The 9th is a ghost and the 10th only applies to gun laws.

[mipafox 438]

There but for the Grace of God go we. It's every day, every single time. As HE alluded to, none of us are as perfect as we think we are. The best have fallen victim to oversights, but usually the layered rules prevented absolute tragedy. It never comes with a warning and always happens in an instant. First indication that you might be doing something wrong is a ringing ear and a dead body in front of you. Or a missing leg or a sudden car wreck. My parents saw a guy have his chest restricted by a branch while trimming a tree - he's dead. I worked with guys that put a boom into an overhead transmission line. Worked with guys whose buddy tripped off a truck and landed on a pile of stakes he just unloaded. You have to look for this stuff constantly. But you KNOW that there is always danger from the muzzle of a firearm, that never changes. Every time.

[Newtonian 453]

There but for the Grace of God go we. It's every day, every single time. As HE alluded to, none of us are as perfect as we think we are. The best have fallen victim to oversights, but usually the layered rules prevented absolute tragedy. It never comes with a warning and always happens in an instant. First indication that you might be doing something wrong is a ringing ear and a dead body in front of you. Or a missing leg or a sudden car wreck. My parents saw a guy have his chest restricted by a branch while trimming a tree - he's dead. I worked with guys that put a boom into an overhead transmission line. Worked with guys whose buddy tripped off a truck and landed on a pile of stakes he just unloaded. You have to look for this stuff constantly. But you KNOW that there is always danger from the muzzle of a firearm, that never changes. Every time.

Aw c'mon. Everyone knows that you can prevent any accident, even meteor strikes, if you take enough NRA training courses. And when tragedy strikes you can make it all better by "owning" your shit.