A plea for gun safety
This picture, originally posted with no explanation of what's wrong with it, is up over at Instapundit. Following complaints from what he describes as a "veritable army of readers," Professor Reynolds updated his entry to acknowledge the safety violation it depicits. You notice that both of them have their finger on the trigger, yes? I don't mean to pick on this particular couple, whose error is commonplace; but the conduct shown here is a big, freakin' no-no, even if they're just hamming it up for the camera.
"Well, yes," Professor Reynolds writes, "but I'm prepared to make an exception for a photo-op like this one, where the firearms appear to be pointed safely." Even if we assume, arguendo, that the guns are pointed in a safe direction, there are no good exceptions to the other rules of gun safety. None.
The rules of safe gun handling follow a logical order, with each successive rule building on the ones that precede it. The first rule of safe gun handling is that all guns are always loaded. Even if you know a gun is not loaded, you still treat it as if it were loaded. This reminds us to afford firearms the respect they deserve. They are, after all, deadly weapons. (By the way, in any newspaper account of a person who has unintentionally shot another human being, what's the thing the shooter is most likely to say? "I didn't know the gun was loaded!")
The second rule is to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, i.e. not pointed at anything you're unwilling to destroy. In the event of a negligent discharge, this rule prevents you from blowing a hole in your television -- or in your companion's head. We should never be surprised by what our bullets strike.
The next rule of safe gun handling is to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Firearms do not discharge of their own volition. Any time you read an account of a gun "just going off," it's because the shooter had his finger on the trigger.
Firearms provide us with the means to protect ourselves against the criminally violent and to resist a tyrannical government. I myself own several, and have a license to carry one. Although I keep it concealed, as required by Texas law, I almost always have a gun with me whenever I'm in the public square. I am not anti-gun.
I was taught to shoot by some burly straight men who either didn't feel any homophobia or else never showed it. As we say in Texas, they learned me how. In turn, I've had the opportunity to introduce firearms to several of my friends and to take them to range with me. I had my partner, Michael, buy a gun of his own and I taught him to use it. I did so because I love him, and if ever I'm not home when a cretinous yahoo comes through the door, I want Michael to be the one left standing. I am not anti-gun.
I'm a member of the NRA and a proponent of our right, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, to keep and bear arms. But owning and handling guns is a serious responsibility; by design, firearms are dangerous. And although people can shoot for sport and have great fun doing it, guns are not toys. In this belief, I am not anti-gun.
For those of us who own guns -- and who face periodic legal and political assaults on our right to do so -- the behavior captured in the image above should drive us bananas. (I'm glad Professor Reynolds has gotten an earful from his readers; he should.) Every tragic, needless death from the mishandling of a firearm provides ammunition to our adversaries, to say nothing of the innocent lives lost.
When handled properly, firearms are safe; when handled improperly, they get people killed. I assume that nothing untoward happened to the couple pictured here. And the odds are pretty good that nothing will happen to you either, even if you violate the rules of safety. But here's the deal: in every account you'll ever read of somebody getting accidentally shot, it will be the consequence of the kind of behavior shown in that picture.