Quote:
So RC20, what you're saying, I have driven my truck thousands of miles and not needed my seat belts so I don't need seat belts........I mean there are thousands of things that can get you, so why worry about seat belts.
Not buying it: I wont let my grandkids or wife in the truck without their seat belts and I won't allow a low numbered M1903 on any range that I run.
|
No, you missed the point entirely.
Using seat belts (and I was an ardent and early advocate of those being mandatory use and used them myself, drunk or sober) is one of the ways I am trying to convey that MITIGATES the risk. It does not stop it, but it does reduce the chance of severe injury or death. Its the right think to do with as many air bags as you can get. However, you put far more risk to your whole family going to grandmas than having them shoot thousands of rounds out of a low SN 1903. Thats just the facts of life.
Don't drive drunk is another risk mitigator , but does not stop you getting killed or injured by another drunk (seat bags and seat belts may save you)
You are cherry picking the low SN 1903 risk from all other risks and making a mountain out of a molecule in the entire spectrum of risk we all face in living.
Somehow we all have to figure out how to live our lives. Assessing risk without the cherry picking one that says that I am risk free when everything what you do is fraught with risk and has a risk factor. Then choose to focus on reducing one very tiny tiny risk and claiming you are virtuous with risk.
I have had more than enough occasions where I have faced certain death or sever injury to be too familiar with it, some of it was plain stupid on my part and I was damned lucky or skillful enough to survive it (the guy who came out of an alley at 50 mph across the front of my Bronco that if I had been half a second sooner would have nailed me in the drivers door and killed me even with my seat belt being on (nor airbags in those days)
I live in Alaska and I see 15 air crashes a year where entire families die flying out on pure recreational trips. Is it worth it? How do you think the survivors feel?
Where does not shooting a low SN 1903 come into that? Marines fought Guadalcanal with NO reported receiver blow ups.
No blow ups reported after 1928. Hmmmm. Again I am not saying do it, but I am saying doing so has been conveyed as a Japanese suicide flight (certain death) to Okinawa in WWII vs the actual risk (close to Zero if you will pardon a pun)
However, its simply hiding your head in the sand to say it eliminates any real risk in the spectrum of your life. It does not. ALL things you do in life have a certain risk factor.
Being born has a definite risk, you will die. Its how you live in between and often how soon.
All firearms can fail. All shooting is a risk. I choose to do it, but I am aware of it. I sure not going to worry about a low SN 1903 in relation to every other risk I face in life that makes that one look like a grain of sand in a square yard of sand.
What about all the recovered drill rifles being shot that are severely comprised and on a guaranteed path to failure? How about all those other abused rifles that are about to go boom?
I will respect you if you do not, but I do not respect anyone who blows it all out of proportion to the real risk you face in just being alive and then says, I am virtuous and then tries to convince everyone else that is the path to virtue as well.