A Very Unsettling and Unnecessary Accident

The #1 rule regarding firearm safety that I was taught at a young age from my father and God help me if I was seen doing otherwise, is that there are ABSOLUTELY NO exceptions or excuses to leave room for ANY mistakes in NOT following the safety guidelines that you: “NEVER –> EVER!!! - point a gun at someone under ANY circumstances unless you willing to take their life!!!”

So sad that the importance of this #1 rule is not more respected and strictly followed.

 

I like the other way of putting it, and yes, so sad and true; and on another note I guess what also makes me take pause is that:

I am reminded of and would admit that at one time I was pretty angry and hurt about “my lesson” but there is some ever-growing comfort and appreciation to be found in the realization of what could be the consequences of not learning it.

Things like what happened to that family prompts one to reflect back again and reconsider the amount of grace and forgiveness he is giving from his heart and to meditate on and be thankful for seeing yet even deeper meanings and blessings to be found God’s Wise Words of instruction pertaining to the matter:

Pro 13:1 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

Pro 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

 

Interesting that if a person was to strictly keep even just one rule of the T.H.I.N.K such an accident could not have happened and also all 5 rules must be must be broken for the accident to happen, (on second thought, not quite I guess, similar issue as with with my rule but in reverse) also another exception could be dependent on how one interprets "handle with care" I suppose.

I've always figured my #1 rule as top priority which eccentially takes the others under consideration and covers for them but of course not in disregard of those other prudent safety guidlines to be followed.

I guess I like the way mine gets the point across and is a solid way to avoid accidently shooting someone if strictly observed but there is an exception in that if not keeping your finger off the trigger you could still accidently fire the gun and go through a wall or bounce off something and hit someone you had no idea the projection was aimed at, although that is my #2 rule. I could see someone making the case that 5 solid rules strictly maintained is better that counting on holding one before the other, although I don't personally disregard #2 by any means I wouldn't want anyone else to think #1 was enough.

Then again, LOL, it seems there could a lot of variation in how one would keep the 5 rules as far as priority goes. for example you could start with "T" but it that would have to include especially "N" and be closely followed by "K" anyway, just like my order. THINK is a catchy way to over all the rules though and easy to remember.

 

I got rid of 3 guns (357 S&W, Glock 17, and Baretta 9mm) because I was afraid that somehow my young son who managed to get his hands on one in my presence from the back of an ATV compartment while my back was turned, and thinking that him following in his dad’s footsteps would find a way to get into them no matter what precautions I took, by abruptly selling them way underpriced to a neighbor gun collector but later regretted it thinking strict compliance with a safe that only I knew the combination to until he grew up would suffice, unfortunately my “neighbor” would not sell them back.


P.S. the Glock was new and soon thereafter they were deemed illegal to make and the price tripled, the 357 was also new and came through a trade for a $1500 dog with a cop who had it machined and with pearl handles but decided he preferred the dog and another gun, and the Beretta was was one of the only things I ever had from my dad. I sold then for $450. I just wanted them gone and nothing else was important at the time.

 

That's because you're a girl.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

Note, I wisely (being a man well-schooled in the arts of how to "carefully" talk to a woman) left out the "assumed" :saint: word “just”. The remark then was better taken as a reference to the natural tendencies of things.