No, my point is that a rule that elicits a first response of "that simply cannot be true" is bad.
I have no problem with handling a gun as if it were loaded, but I would prefer we classify that under a muzzle control rule, rather than a loaded-unloaded rule.
There is enough illogical thinking in this world: listen to any anti-gun poster child. We don't need our own safety rules contributing to it.
I understand your point, but I will simply never support a rule that is logically fallacious or inconsistent. Bad rules, bad laws, you just can't "assume" people will do what you mean, and not what you say. You have to say it right.
TFred
I still have tears in my eyes from the Mr. Perfect post...:lol:
TFred, I agree with you but see 45 ACP's point. He's looking at it from a common sense angle but unfortunately, that's not what the rule says, it's absolute.
Us country folks were taught to never point it at anything we didn't want a hole in. That's a little easier rule to follow.
When I was in Military School we were issued Springfields. The firing pins were ground down so the rule was, they can't fire. There was also a very lucrative business of turning new firing pins just in case the North Attacked so obviously, the can't fire rule wasn't too wise.
Rules should be rules that can be followed, not rules that you have to apply logic to decipher....Unless of course, you're perfect:lol::lol::lol: