Chicks and guns and booger-hooks and bang-switches
JayG:
I don’t want to see some scantily clad bimbo holding your gun/magazine/gun-related-widget like it was a turd while smiling and thrusting her silicone-enhanced breasts at the camera. I’d rather see a burly dude beating the ever-lovin’ snot out of it and it still working, but then again, I’ve always been a little weird.
Personally, I’ve always been a fan of the chicks and guns meme. But I more enjoy photos of women shooting who know what they’re doing (like this) as opposed to some chick in a bikini with an EBR.
Jay also takes issue with the gun handling. A valid concern, of course. But even those that know what they’re doing violate the rules on camera sometimes. Here’s the thing though. People take photos of guns and people with guns. In those photos, some rules are broken because of the shot that people are going for. If all rules of firearms safety were all strictly followed, we’d all go insane and there’d never be any movies made. For instance, rule #1 (all guns are always loaded) is, frankly, crap. I remove the magazine from my Glock, rack the slide to eject a round from the chamber, and the slide goes forward. I do not seriously believe that the gun has somehow automagically chambered a round since that violates all known laws of reality.
If you’ve ever met a serious gun owner that claims to have never violated one of the 4 Rules in his or her life, that person has either owned guns for less than a day, or they’re a liar. The 4 Rules are actually elegant in that you need to be breaking at least two of them simultaneously for something bad to happen
True. And, aside from the four rules, people break the other rules as well. Here’s me and junior shooting without eye protection.
Also, when we gun bloggers attended the ParaUSA event, Todd Jarrett gave us an in classroom session. In that session, he handled a gun. He took precautions, of course, but he did have his finger on the trigger to illustrate technique and he dry-fired the gun. Prior to that, he cleared the gun and showed it clear to no less than four people. You can take reasonable gun safety steps for the purpose of taking photos and videos and for training. In fact, there’s even a safety guide made just for that.
And it’s not even for photos. If you’ve ever dry fired, you’ve broken a rule. If you holster your weapon in an IWB holster, you’ve broken a rule. If you draw from a shoulder holster, you’ve broken a rule. When you pull the trigger on your Glock before you disassemble it, you’ve broken a rule. Boresighted your rifle on your kitchen table, you’ve broken a rule. It goes on and on.
Exercise caution and use your head.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:17 am
What does it say about me when the first thing I noticed in the Ebaum’s World picture wasn’t the bikini, but “Awww, poor thing! She’s cross dominant!”
December 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Wow, I got Unc to write a long(ish) post!
Unc, believe me, I understand about not being able to obey the rules at all times. I think about that every time I dry fire or practice my draw. Hell, I think about it when I’m pocket-carrying and sitting across a table from someone.
It’s the intentional “muzzle pointed at the camera” shots or the videos where you can clearly see shots going over the berm that make me crazy. A finger on a trigger is annoying; rounds more than likely leaving the range is frightening.
And to sell widgets? Idon’tfreakin’thinkso…
December 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’ve often thought that the 4 Rules could be distilled down to one: A Gun Is Not a Toy, Don’t Play With It! but so far haven’t had much success in spreading it around the interwebs.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I’m with you on Rule #1. It’s always sounded more like magical thinking to me.
But again, to address the sniperbabes issue – it would be a good thing if the images they present to the world were more aligned with the specific message they are trying to promote, namely pro-2A and gun safety.
Their whole “women in the shooting sports” line is another thing entirely. Don’t get me started.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’ve always interpreted the 3 or 4 rules, depending on whether it’s the general usage or NEA instruction, as ideals or goals with the understanding that you make every effort not to violate them but always that Stuff happens
December 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
We just did a shooting video with live ammo and a camera on a jib. The camera was in front of the gun and the shooter all the time. Someone will no doubt scream that we had a cameraman out there but it aint so. The cameraman was 30 feet behind the shooter. Also, I’ve used remote trigger still cameras to take pics from in front of shooters, now that’s not to say that no one has ever snuck in front of a shooter to take a picture but it can be done safely.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I won’t go as far as some and call the rules “guidelines,” but they are not absolute, either. If certain precautions are taken, the 4 Rules can be violated safely – i.e., if you need to violate Rules 2, 3, or 4, perform a visual and tactile inspection of the chamber and magazine immediately before doing so, to verify that it’s truly not loaded. If it’s been a few minutes, or you’ve set the gun down since you last checked, check again.
Like Caleb said, you have to be breaking two rules together for something bad to happen.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
It sounds like most of you need Richard Feynman to come in and straighten you out.
Caleb’s right about this:
But then y’all go off the tracks (just like NASA did) when you think it means you can start neglecting one or more of them. Oops, there goes the redundancy!
The 4 rules are about instilling a mindset as much as they are about the details, and if I never again have someone say to me “Hey, it’s not loaded” after I complain that they just swept me with their rifle, it will be too soon…
December 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I never said we should ignore the 4 Rules. I like them. We should abide by them. What we shouldn’t do is assume that slavish devotion to the 4 Rules is a replacement for thinking.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“I remove the magazine from my Glock, rack the slide to eject a round from the chamber, and the slide goes forward. I do not seriously believe that the gun has somehow automagically chambered a round since that violates all known laws of reality.”
It would really suck if you had a broken extractor. Said that, I have done it too, but then again, I feel for a round in the chamber rather than just look or trust.
I like that the 4 rules require that two have to be broken to cause a problem, but I think that you can “substitute” some other action, such as Todd Jarrett having 4 (presumable) competent people verify that his gun was empty. Of course, the better action would be for him to have not used a gun, but a training replica. How do you think they shoot movies of full auto in California where full auto is illegal? I’m guessing they don’t use a real gun. That makes the prop guy’s life much simpler. What happens when they get lazy and use a real gun, well, just Google Brandon Lee.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I don’t see any guns in the Ebaum pics.
What are you guys looking at?
Chicks with guns is my favorite genre, but I like art quite a bit.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Caleb,
Au contraire, that’s exactly what they’re supposed to be.
Let me use an example from a different domain. Have you driven recently? Made any left turns? I’ll be you didn’t spend even a single microsecond explicitly thinking, “OK, now it’s time to turn on the indicator. .. Now slowly press on the brake pedal. Hmm, too soon to start turning the wheel. Oh, wait–there’s a oncoming car, what do I do now???”
That’s the level at which I’d like myself and my range buddies to have internalized the rule about never letting our muzzle covered something we aren’t willing to destroy! And that doesn’t mean we can’t override that during training or maintenance, but rather that this would be a conscious decision to override the rule, for a specific good reason, and with something else replacing the safety check that the rule would ordinarily supply (e.g. Jarrett’s having 4 people double-check his clearing.)
December 10th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Oh, no, sorry for the runaway italics.
December 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Making it “a conscious decision to override the rule, for a specific good reason, and with something else replacing the safety check that the rule would ordinarily supply” is exactly what I was getting at – a deliberate, step by step process for when it becomes necessary to violate a Rule.
For example, field stripping my Taurus PT-145 requires pulling the trigger to release the slide. Immediately before doing so, I stop and make a deliberate, redundant chamber and magazine check (empty chamber, no magazine). It’s easy, because removing the takedown pin requires locking the slide back.
I do the same thing with my Ruger Mk. III, except I’m even more obsessive about it (if that’s possible) because it’s got a @!#@$@$#@ magazine safety, so I have to constantly insert and remove a magazine during the disassembly process – the magazine has to be checked every time.
It should also be understood that, when it is necessary to violate a Rule, one and only one Rule should be violated at a time. When I pull that trigger to field strip my gun, it’s still pointed in a safe direction: at something I don’t care about destroying (i.e., a bucket of sand specifically for that purpose), and I know what is behind and near it. In other words, when I have to violate Rule 2, I very carefully verify that it’s not loaded, then treat it as if it were loaded anyway.
That’s the way it should always be done, and only when it has to be done.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
OK, I think I need to revise my opening paragraph, now that I’ve seen it in “print”: it’s not that the rules are supposed to replace thinking, it’s that they’re supposed to precede thinking. They are supposed to be automatic. Is that better?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I would call back to the idea of booth babes that saw some discussion during shot show. I’d bet that most of us would prefer seeing female gun nuts over booth babes with props.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:20 am
I’ve always hated the “girls and guns” meme with a passion. I’m not some goddamn thirteen year old who’ll buy a product if it’s got some bimbo on the packaging, if I’m that desperate for titties, well, redtube is only a few keystrokes away. Oleg Volk is one of the worst offenders, in my opinion. No, Oleg, you don’t need that topless girl to make your point about self defense or gun laws or whatever. Stop it, you’re only hurting our image. (And also stop using those stupid photoshop effects on every picture)
December 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
For me (and hopefully my students) Rule One is: “A firearm is loaded, until you prove to yourself that it’s not.”
“All firearms are always loaded” is indeed ridiculous.