Complacency, Ohio instructor shoots a student in the arm...

[HoughMade]

So you're at the firing line and a cease fire is called to go down range to inspect targets. Do you personally ensure that every gun on that line is clear before you go down range?

I understand the rules and I don't disagree with them. But it helps to teach them in a way that's practical. If I were a newb and read these posts here, I'd be scared to death to touch a gun.

I work in industrial maintenance. Have you ever heard of Lock Out Tag Out? We have people sitting in offices who don't know the difference between a volt and an amp telling us how to safely lock out a piece of equipment with a plastic bodied lock that a "5 year old girl" could break off. If we followed the advice of the blissninnies, every single employee here would be in a bubble suit in a padded room sleeping for 8 hours because its the only way we could do our jobs safely.

These posts here are teaching an impossible goal. This firearms instructor was negligent. If handling of firearms is so damned dangerous then why don't we just beat them all into plow shares so that no one gets hurt?

I don't know how my wife manages to work in the kitchen with all those guns pointing at here from the basement.

Fight the good fight, my man, but the people have chosen and mantra and reality will never replace the mantra.

 

[printcraft]

Yes yes yes. Good Lord. We all know that it's not loaded x1000.

"I JUST TOOK THE GUN APART.... IT'S IN PIECES... IT'S DEFINITELY NOT LOADED!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Look at the thread title again. Complacency.

Treating the gun with complacency will get your ass bit eventually.
The mindset needs to be automatic in regard to safety.
Safety needs to be ingrained into your actions thereby you are automatically and without thinking in safe mode.
NOT 'safety only when I think I need it'

 

[hornadylnl]

The Range Safety Officers check each and every gun, after each shooter does the same prior to them checking. I wouldn't just walk in front of a gun I assumed to be empty without them doing so. They don't assume every shooter is 100% perfect at properly clearing their gun. Sure, it takes a few second to double-check, but as Kirk has repeated - it's the stakes not the odds.

Yes, I've worked at a plant with Lock-Out, Tag-Out. It doesn't matter really that a 5 year old could break the lock off or not. It is meant to be a physical warning that the machine should not be re-energized until maintenance is done with it. For someone to disregard the procedure and rip off the lock and turn the machine back on would be moronic. You can't cure stupid, you can simply try to control for it as possible and prevent negative outcomes. The answer is not disregarding EHS/HSE protocol because it is impossible to completely eliminate Reportables.

Just because it may be impossible to keep idiots from accidentally shooting themselves, you think it is stupid to attempt to repeat the 4 rules to attempt to reduce the number?

I remember getting rodded leaving the range but I don't ever remember getting rodded before leaving the firing line and going down range to check our targets. IIRC, we had to drop mags and lock the bolt to the rear with the dust cover up so the range safety could see the bolt was to the rear. I don't remember them picking up each rifle and inspecting the chamber.

What's the point of LOTO if it could be easily overridden with malice in mind?

As for giving fuel to antis, if I were an anti I come here to read that gun owners are scared to death of guns and it would legitimize my irrational fears that a gun will jump up on its own and start mowing people down. After all, anybody in the floor below me is playing Russian roulette with my holstered gun.

Safety and training is very important. Training people to an impossible task that we all know everyone violates will make many tune out. Simply saying "every gun is always loaded!!!!!!!1!!!!" isn't training.

 

[Purdue Plinker]

I remember getting rodded leaving the range but I don't ever remember getting rodded before leaving the firing line and going down range to check our targets. IIRC, we had to drop mags and lock the bolt to the rear with the dust cover up so the range safety could see the bolt was to the rear. I don't remember them picking up each rifle and inspecting the chamber.

What's the point of LOTO if it could be easily overridden with malice in mind?

As for giving fuel to antis, if I were an anti I come here to read that gun owners are scared to death of guns and it would legitimize my irrational fears that a gun will jump up on its own and start mowing people down. After all, anybody in the floor below me is playing Russian roulette with my holstered gun.

Safety and training is very important. Training people to an impossible task that we all know everyone violates will make many tune out. Simply saying "every gun is always loaded!!!!!!!1!!!!" isn't training.

Plant safety isn't about preventing every possible opportunity for someone to purposefully endanger others, that would be impossible. It is to try to minimize the risks faced by workers out of result of poor practices, bad habits, distractions, and putting up barriers between danger and employees. Like I said, you cannot prevent every single risk but you can minimize their opportunity and you can try to control for absent-mindedness / stupidity.

Who is scared to death? You are building a strawman while ignoring what people are actually saying. You have irrational hatred of people talking about proper safety protocol, whether about guns or in the plant. Is attempting to prevent you from being crushed or electrocuted stupid and unnecessary training? Are big presses, high voltage equipment, or hot furnaces too dangerous to use because people have very strict safety protocol about operating them? I never heard of someone from OSHA being fearful because a plant was too vigilant in their regard for safety, but they sure as heck get upset when an accident seriously injures someone or causes their death.


Here's a challenge: Explain how you would make the training / 4 rules / mantra more practical to suit your perspective. What is your better way of reducing accidents while not being overly willy-nilly about it?

 

[hornadylnl]

Plant safety isn't about preventing every possible opportunity for someone to purposefully endanger others, that would be impossible. It is to try to minimize the risks faced by workers out of result of poor practices, bad habits, distractions, and putting up barriers between danger and employees. Like I said, you cannot prevent every single risk but you can minimize their opportunity and you can try to control for absent-mindedness / stupidity.

Who is scared to death? You are building a strawman while ignoring what people are actually saying. You have irrational hatred of people talking about proper safety protocol, whether about guns or in the plant. Is attempting to prevent you from being crushed or electrocuted stupid and unnecessary training? Are big presses, high voltage equipment, or hot furnaces too dangerous to use because people have very strict safety protocol about operating them? I never heard of someone from OSHA being fearful because a plant was too vigilant in their regard for safety, but they sure as heck get upset when an accident seriously injures someone or causes their death.


Here's a challenge: Explain how you would make the training / 4 rules / mantra more practical to suit your perspective. What is your better way of reducing accidents while not being overly willy-nilly about it?

And you're assigning emotions to me that simply aren't there. I have no hatred for anyone about this issue.

This thread is one of the only threads I've ever seen a qualifier for a gun not loaded as in being personally inspected by oneself and being clear. But I've read multiple times about the 4 rules and every gun is always loaded.

I'm simply taking these arguments to their logical conclusion. A safety officer inspecting each gun before going down range is not me myself and I inspecting each gun. Most that parrot the rules never allow for any single qualification in their posts.

A gun is a tool. A gun in itself isn't dangerous.

 

[bwframe]

Lots of folks are "too smart" for the four rules. Just like this supposed instructor who is responsible for shooting his student and helping the anti-gun folks advance their cause.

 

[ratfortman]

from the Gun Rights Examiner article 13Aug13:

“Terry also teaches in the law enforcement training program through the Eastland Career Center, recertifies law enforcement officials in Firearms Certification, and schedules and instructs many local Conceal Carry certification classes. He also does consultation with Ohio’s Supreme Court Systems on their security measures and practices. Terry maintains his status as a Peace Office [sic] with the Harrisburg Police Department.” It would seem those exploiting this incident to spread the anti-gun hate will need to extend their universal ban to law enforcement, that is, if they wish to maintain any semblance of logical consistency. If they wish to…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

#1: Complacency by an instructor caused him to injure someone.
#2: The anti's don't care. They have dead school children and twisted statistics to use. One instructor is irrelevant and won't become part of some great national debate.
#3: The anti's don't care if you know or follow safety rules. See #2. It will not become part of some great national debate.
#4: Every rule has exceptions. Of course you will sometimes look down a barrel, once you have verified its unloaded or mechanically inoperable. I can look down the barrel of my 10-22 takedown when its off the receiver all day because its incapable of firing when its not on the receiver. I can put a fiber optic flag in my AR-15 and it will both render it incapable of firing and illuminate the rifling.
#5: Waving a real firearm that is mechanically capable of firing is not the same as #4.
#6: Blue guns, those yellow plastic barrel substitutes, etc exist so you can do anything you need to do in #4 without the possibility of injuring someone. It is physically impossible to fire a projectile from these devices, they are not "guns" any more than a pop tart chewed to look like a gun is.

 

[Purdue Plinker]

And you're assigning emotions to me that simply aren't there. I have no hatred for anyone about this issue.

This thread is one of the only threads I've ever seen a qualifier for a gun not loaded as in being personally inspected by oneself and being clear. But I've read multiple times about the 4 rules and every gun is always loaded.

I'm simply taking these arguments to their logical conclusion. A safety officer inspecting each gun before going down range is not me myself and I inspecting each gun. Most that parrot the rules never allow for any single qualification in their posts.

A gun is a tool. A gun in itself isn't dangerous.

Then what would you use to describe your position towards the burdensome [in your view] rules at your workplace or in regards to guns if not hatred for them? Annoyance? Distaste? Whatever you may call your objection to safety protocol being repeated, you seemingly have ignored multiple qualifiers in this thread to battle against an argument I didn't see anyone make here. (maybe in other threads but that's not really the subject at hand, here) You are annoyed by the EHS/HSE people and those who advocate for responsible and respectful handling of firearms because they are too willy nilly about the 4 rules. ["We have people sitting in offices who don't know the difference between a volt and an amp telling us how to safely lock out a piece of equipment"]

You were the one who assigned fear / scared to death to people who expect responsible owners / users to keep in mind proper safety protocol in regards to firearms. Guns can obviously cause injury or death, and proper protocol can help prevent accidents (although not entirely ensure perfect elimination). Your stance seems to make the case that the repetition of safety protocol is WORSE than not doing so and having more accidents in the news. Really?

No, you are taking your argument to an illogical conclusion. Such as LOTO being worthless because it doesn't prevent from intentionally breaking protocol that is intended to prevent absentmindedness from creating a serious negative outcome. The 4 rules don't prevent someone from using a firearm in malice either, simply attempting to prevent accidents.

Again, you are arguing against positions from other threads and acknowledge that in this post. You are purposefully ignoring what people have said in order to build strawman and argue against something other than what was posted. Just because you have a grudge it seems against people who parrot the rules in other threads or cannot understand qualification, does not mean that it is reasonable to create illogical arguments here. As printcraft mentioned, it should be ingrained to treat a gun as loaded as a default automatically. I didn't see anyone here say that you need to lock away your bolt and firing mechanism to clean your barrel, besides your assumption that others expect that.

The instructor probably was pretty sure that the gun was not loaded when he picked it up, but would we be talking about this now if it took the couple of seconds to check? No - responsible, even if you seem them as paranoid, actions help to prevent and minimize said accidents that give antis a cause for concern.

edit: Basically, you could change the first rule to treat a gun like the Schrödinger's Cat in regards to it being loaded, but everyone might not get that. The Canadians say "assume that every gun is loaded" if you like that better (not that they always are).

 

[HoughMade]

#1: Complacency by an instructor caused him to injure someone.
#2: The anti's don't care. They have dead school children and twisted statistics to use. One instructor is irrelevant and won't become part of some great national debate.
#3: The anti's don't care if you know or follow safety rules. See #2. It will not become part of some great national debate.
#4: Every rule has exceptions. Of course you will sometimes look down a barrel, once you have verified its unloaded or mechanically inoperable. I can look down the barrel of my 10-22 takedown when its off the receiver all day because its incapable of firing when its not on the receiver. I can put a fiber optic flag in my AR-15 and it will both render it incapable of firing and illuminate the rifling.
#5: Waving a real firearm that is mechanically capable of firing is not the same as #4.
#6: Blue guns, those yellow plastic barrel substitutes, etc exist so you can do anything you need to do in #4 without the possibility of injuring someone. It is physically impossible to fire a projectile from these devices, they are not "guns" any more than a pop tart chewed to look like a gun is.

INGO has exceeded it's daily logic rations. I'll have to sign off now.

 

[bwframe]

#1: Complacency by an instructor caused him to injure someone.
#2: The anti's don't care. They have dead school children and twisted statistics to use. One instructor is irrelevant and won't become part of some great national debate.
#3: The anti's don't care if you know or follow safety rules. See #2. It will not become part of some great national debate.
#4: Every rule has exceptions. Of course you will sometimes look down a barrel, once you have verified its unloaded or mechanically inoperable. I can look down the barrel of my 10-22 takedown when its off the receiver all day because its incapable of firing when its not on the receiver. I can put a fiber optic flag in my AR-15 and it will both render it incapable of firing and illuminate the rifling.
#5: Waving a real firearm that is mechanically capable of firing is not the same as #4.
#6: Blue guns, those yellow plastic barrel substitutes, etc exist so you can do anything you need to do in #4 without the possibility of injuring someone. It is physically impossible to fire a projectile from these devices, they are not "guns" any more than a pop tart chewed to look like a gun is.

You can call it what you want, the instructor DID NOT follow the four rules. With all due respect, it is no different than claiming to know what and what isn't fodder for the anti's.

You are correct in that once a gun is rendered mechanically inoperable, it is no longer a gun. A gun without firing components is nothing more than inert metal. An "unloaded" gun is still a gun.

 

[Purdue Plinker]

With all due respect, it is no different than claiming to know what and what isn't fodder for the anti's.

I'm not sure what impact or attention level it'll receive nationally, but I've seen it posted up by some locals. They probably don't know that this incident would have been avoided if proper protocol was followed, just that it happened. Stuff like this is why Carmel residents think that random bullets will hit them or their kids in a new range parking lot.

 

[jgressley2003]

Was the instructor by chance, Eric Holder?

 

[AngryRooster]

And you're assigning emotions to me that simply aren't there. I have no hatred for anyone about this issue.

This right here is why I've continued to to discuss this. You don't take this personal and fling insults like a chimp, just play devils advocate. Quite often this is a good thing to make sure all points of view are looked at in perspective.

This thread is one of the only threads I've ever seen a qualifier for a gun not loaded as in being personally inspected by oneself and being clear. But I've read multiple times about the 4 rules and every gun is always loaded.

This is the key point for me. I've never expected a gun to jump out at me and attack on its own. I don't have an irrational fear of seeing them on shelves or in someones holster. What I don't like is when I don't know the person involved, don't know the status of the gun and it's being waved or pointed in my direction. If I unload a gun myself, verify it and put it in someones hand while they stand in front of me, I'm fairly confident that it won't go bang even if they point it at my chest. If you take that gun and walk out of the room with it for a few minutes away from my presence then come back into the room and try that again then it becomes a different story.

I'm simply taking these arguments to their logical conclusion. A safety officer inspecting each gun before going down range is not me myself and I inspecting each gun. Most that parrot the rules never allow for any single qualification in their posts.

At ranges there is a reason why you don't load and fondle your gun on the line while everyone puts theirs down and goes downrange to change targets.


A gun is a tool. A gun in itself isn't dangerous.

Agree.

Everything can be taken to extremes. Safety isn't to be taken lightly but you still have to be able to function at the range. I will not disassemble my gun and lock it in a case just to go down range and change targets nor will expect others to do so either. What I will not tolerate is someone coonfingering their gun at the line and pointing it downrange while myself or someone else is down there.

To try to gear this back the the topic somewhat: This ND should have never happened. I just don't understand how this instructor could have let this happen. Make no mistake, he did LET this happen, it wasn't an accident. It was HIS job alone (the gun was in his hand) to make sure that what he was doing was safe for the environment he was in. To not know if your REVOLVER is loaded when all you have to do is look at it is pure negligence. Each of us are responsible for what we do with our firearms, there is no one else to blame for this.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just so everyone knows, the antis do know about this and do care as it makes all of us look like dangerous fools.

They are watching us. Be on your best gun safety behavior:

Ohh Shoot: Gun safety instructor unintentionally shoots student

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This thread is one of the only threads I've ever seen a qualifier for a gun not loaded as in being personally inspected by oneself and being clear. But I've read multiple times about the 4 rules and every gun is always loaded.

I am uncertain as to why because Cooper was quite explicit in his lectures at API about this. Heck, it was even in his gun safety video, which may be on you tube. Let me go look for it, horn.

 

[esrice]

This has so much* in common with downrange photography.






*nothing at all

 

[the1kidd03]

Just so everyone knows, the antis do know about this and do care as it makes all of us look like dangerous fools.

They are watching us. Be on your best gun safety behavior:

Ohh Shoot: Gun safety instructor unintentionally shoots student

Yep. What he said.

I've been engaging in anti-gunner debates about this since the story broke. They'll use any and everything they can against us.

 

[hornadylnl]

I am uncertain as to why because Cooper was quite explicit in his lectures at API about this. Heck, it was even in his gun safety video, which may be on you tube. Let me go look for it, horn.

Because when pictures like this are posted and everyone starts running around the conference table, they never allow for the fact that the guy might have cleared it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Of course the anti's will talk about it. Just like we talk about it. That doesn't mean it becomes part of the debate or sways anyone's opinion. I'm sure we're all smart enough to understand the difference between preaching to the choir and having something to say that sways the undecided. When you can appeal to the undecided with events like Newtown, I'm supposed to believe that this guy, or people's reactions to it, are relevant to the national or state level debate? No emotional pull, no "there but by the Grace of God go I (or my family), no children or race angle to play, it all adds up to irrelevance to the overall debate.