Shooting and drinking?

I suppose if I was in a war I would probably go across a fence without laying my gun down or unloading. But as a child of 9 with my first shotgun I was taught by my father, who was an instructor in battle school during the second world war, to be concerned about fences when crossing them. The way we were supposed to do it was to have our partner hold our gun and go across. Then he would pass both to you and go across himself. If you were by yourself you were to put the shotgun on the ground then climb over. As I recall, we often didn't unload. So, I guess we weren't really, really, really safe. Still the rules have served me well in the field for 60 years. On the other hand, I don't see any problem with unloading the gun because it probably is slightly safer and if my partner saw it as necessary or brought it up I would do it without complaint. Nor do I see why a person would want to climb over a fence with a loaded gun. The occasional person did get killed crossing fences at that time. One way of doing it was leaning a loaded gun against the fence then climbing over. You could probably get away with this often enough to think it was OK too. Another was climbing over the fence with a loaded gun and taking a fall. If I remember correctly, in this latter case, the guy holding the gun wasn't the one that was killed. I have to agree that rules get tiresome sometimes and you can create a problem with too many. But, for Pete's sake, part of being safe is having clear procedures that work. This is especially important when you are instructing or examining someone for a firearms or hunting licence.

I don't climb many fences, but the areas i deer hunt are steep and full of blowdowns, thick brush, steep rock bluffs etc. If I had to unload every time I had to negotiate an obstruction, I'd spend all day loading my rifle, taking 10 steps, unloading, repeating.:)

What i do is make sure I don't point the muzzle at myself. It has worked so far.;)

I do make sure the chamber is empty, though.
 
Last edited:
I don't climb many fences, but the areas i deer hunt are steep and full of blowdowns, thick brush, steep rock bluffs etc. If I had to unload every time I had to negotiate an obstruction, I'd spend all day loading my rifle, taking 10 steps, unloading, repeating.:)

What i do is make sure I don't point the muzzle at myself. It has worked so far.;)

There is always some risk and if we didn't accept some we wouldn't do anything. I'm not arguing for going around terrified that we are going to get hurt. In fact, I think the attitude is dangerous. I'm just arguing for what seems like common sense to me. If things were really rough, for example, I would often use my sling to give myself both hands to steady myself. You can save a fall this way or at least do a more controlled fall. Or, I would walk around stuff, or go under it if it was too dangerous. If you don't do these things when you are really isolated you are risking death or at least a very long period of suffering.
You probably know as well as I do that there are guys that can go through rough country, or get in and out of a vehicle, without putting themselves and others at risk, and guys that can't or don't.
I also believe that a person should be required to demonstrate they know the proper way of doing things if they wish to carry a gun. And, I accept the same rule being applied to me. Anyone who rails against this requirement has a potential problem.
I believe something that was said to me many years ago: "Rules are for the guideance of wise men." To make it clear, I would add to this that '...they are followed slavishly by fools...' Wise men and women use rules intelligently, and what makes things really safe and enjoyable and responsible exists in the minds of the people doing an activity. (In fact, hunting seems to be one of the few remaining things in our culture that actually requires men and women to behave responsibly through their own choices on something that actually matters. The main reason I oppose what has come to pass for liberal thought in our country is the fact they have lost the basic idea of requiring individual responsibility and opted for suppression and elimination of anything they don't like. In order to avoid a political argument here I will also say that the conservatives, who traditionally protected individual rights don't seem to mentioning them much either.)
So, considering these things, what do you think of a person who is in the firearm environment who isn't willing to learn or accept good procedures, follow them, be willing to demonstrate them and accept correction when someone points out that a potential error has crept in? Frankly, I feel they have betrayed a trust and, in the end, they have betrayed me and people like me.
Jeez...it isn't even new years and here I am ranting...going to let this through though...then I'll stop:D...Fred
 
T
So, considering these things, what do you think of a person who is in the firearm environment who isn't willing to learn or accept good procedures, follow them, be willing to demonstrate them and accept correction when someone points out that a potential error has crept in? Frankly, I feel they have betrayed a trust and, in the end, they have betrayed me and people like me.
d

These are the only real "procedures" that you need to be aware of:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET


All the rest is just stuff dreamed up so safety nazis can wag fingers.:p
 
These are the only real "procedures" that you need to be aware of:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

I agree, and I think that by hiding these in a long list of extra rules we just water down the whole subject of safety. If we all have x amount of attention / multitasking ability, I think it would be best used by giving 25% to each of those 4 rules, instead of 5% to each of 20 redundant, arguablly less important ones. Why make things more complicated than they need to be? If you were to drink to the point where your thinking ability is impaired, then whatever you are doing will be more dangerous - but all remains well if you exercise moderation.
 
Now that's funny!!

1 reduced alcohol beer
a 240 lb person
consuming over 5 hours.

Possible impairment!! :D Guess the lawyers gotta protect themselves.


The risk that some shooter might get behind the wheel after having had one too many at a gun club with a licensed facility is no more than presented by millions of people who visit bars, taverns, pubs, nightclubs and restaurants across Canada. It's probably less given the additional complication of having guns in your vehicle if caught while impaired.

But if one beer makes you tipsy or you can't stop drinking once you've started then it's probably best for you to stick with Diet Coke not just at the range but everywhere.

Here's link to a blood alcohol guide. Read the disclaimers, insert your data and find out what your limits are.

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
 
My motto is:
Shoot then call it a day and head home and upon arrival have cold one to celebrate another good day at the range. Any day that we can continue to shoot in this country is indeed a good day.
Alcohol consumption after shooting and after driving home is no problem. It keeps you free from all the life altering issues that could otherwise arise if you do not follow this golden rule. So far the nazi political correct police do not barge into your home to inspect and see if you are overindulging according to rules they make up....of course, give it time and it will likely happen in this country....

CD
 
I had a wild day out at the farm today, and not a beer was consumed... But I would still have a few if I was trap shooting or just screwing around.

Not if I was hunting tho.
 
Back
Top Bottom