Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,137
- 113
The difference the Four Rules would make here, is that they introduce human redundancy.I wish all the 4 rules guys would explain why they think these people would have followed those rules when the standard film rules that have not had a fatality in decades were not followed.
You and Ark represent what I will refer to as the "The Existing Rules Were Adequate" viewpoint. Those rules apparently do not ***_REQUIRE_*** the final holder of the weapon to check it. Again, if I am incorrect about that, I beg instruction and correction.
When you shift to a rigorous application of the Four Rules, every single person who touches that weapon is responsible for it.
You are correct, in that if a person won't follow one rule, they probably won't follow another. But with the Four Rules, every subsequent downstream handler of that gun is required to double-check what the person upstream is handing them. With the rules I think I'm hearing here, downstream gunhandler(s) is/are not required to check the weapon themselves. Only one person has to fail, to allow a tragedy.
If the Four Rules were followed, everybody in the chain would have to fail.
If anyone finds the Four Rules too restrictive in principle - then real guns should not be used (eg. Alpo's Simunition example). That's what you do when the Four Rules can't be followed. You don't use real guns.
The fact you got lucky XXX times really does not change the principle. "Were you safe - or just lucky?"
Last edited: