So, you'll edit the following?
Ah--perhaps I forgot the option: "Safety doesn't matter to me, so it shouldn't matter to you."
Sure--as soon as the folks I was responding to edit their posts.
The proper response to argument (my first post) is argument. The proper response to their posts (ad hominem) is ad hominem. And besides: I'm human, and it's fun (in small amounts).
I can think of no circumstance where violation of Two, by itself , is going to cause a ND
Perhaps a Rule 5 then: You may break any ONE of these Rules, but not TWO AT THE SAME TIME!
Well, it is part of a thoughtful post. Let me think about that one. But at first blush, I'd say that Rule 2 is not supposed to prevent NDs--just supposed to minimize the damage if one occurs.
you have managed to evoke some passions,stir some argument and generate discussion.
Success! Thanks.
Just to be clear: I am planning on learning here, and thank you all.
I wonder if a big part of my OP has been missed. As I said, worrying about what the muzzle of an isolated (unattached to any firearm) barrel is covering makes no sense to me--to anyone?--and so I have had to decide when Rule 2 applies to a muzzle, and when it doesn't. Like, for instance, when the gun is holstered or cased. But then, once I've decided when it applies, I don't violate Rule 2 ever in those case.
Maybe some of you have decided that Rule 2 doesn't apply if you
really, really, really check that the gun is unloaded? And you are consistent with that?
Again, I'm not sure why we'd call something a
rule if you can break it "sometimes", with that "sometimes" remaining quite undefined. Unless we're implying it can ONLY be "broken" under certain, clearly defined conditions when (we can all agree?) it doesn't really apply.
Sort of like making an additional rule ("Rule 2 doesn't apply when...")--but then THAT additional rule always applies?