+- Historic Shooting Forums (http://historicshooting.com)
+-- Forum: General (http://historicshooting.com/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: The front porch (http://historicshooting.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Inherently dangerous (/thread-1428.html)
Inherently dangerous - Don McDowell - 06-17-2015
Qoute from the Quigley web site
Quote:Shooting is inherently dangerous "
This is part of a sentence from a statement made on the Quigley web site. I'm not sure I am agreement with that. Shooting can be dangerous if you have no control over what type of loads and the like , that shooters are using on the line. I don't think I've ever heard of an accident on the line at an NRA sanctioned match, those all have rules about the ammunition..
RE: Inherently dangerous - Cody Smith - 06-18-2015
1) Some shooters have started experimenting with bullets coated with epoxy or powder instead of traditional lube. Coated bullets ARE NOT allowed at the Quigley. It’s modern technology rather than traditional cast bullet lube.
Another quote from their website. Rather funny they are worried about bullet coatings but not smokeless powder. I would like to go one day just to see it, but it seems rather ridiculous to me to see the pictures of all the folks in period dress, with period rifles and equipment, trying to have a buffalo rifle match and then allowing smokeless powder. Then they have serious and dangerous equipment failures which is directly a result of smokeless powder and then claim shooting is inherently dangerous. Shooting is not inherently dangerous! Statistically it is much safer than most other sports. As a father of three young children and a business owner in which many people depend on me, I truly feel it would be irresponsible to involve myself in something "inherently dangerous." Which is why I quit rodeo, sold my motorcycle, and generally gave up drinking. Shooting is not dangerous, idiots using smokeless powder in guns not designed for them is.
Anyway, I hope everyone has fun at the Q this weekend and nobody gets hurt. I wish I were going.
take care, Cody
RE: Inherently dangerous - Don McDowell - 06-18-2015
Cody, the Quigley is something that everybody should take in at least once. It is the grand social event of the summer for single shot rifle fans. I am quilty of almost falling into the Quigley cult.
But when there is absolutely nothing "authentic" about that match in any way shape or form, and they start making rules with the caveat because "it's not authentic" , that speaks of a double standard, and you wonder what is the real thinking behind that "keeping it authentic" rule..
And never loose sight of the fact that the "Quigley" match is based off of a movie about a fictitious character from Wyoming.....
RE: Inherently dangerous - Ironramrod - 06-18-2015
Cody,
That was a very good post, and spot on. Nicely done, my compliments.
Regards
IR
RE: Inherently dangerous - Rick Mulhern - 06-18-2015
Living is dangerous!
Seven out of ten folks meeting you on the highway these days are trying to kill your azz!!
RE: Inherently dangerous - Gunlaker - 06-22-2015
(06-18-2015, 08:49 AM)Don McDowell Wrote: And never loose sight of the fact that the "Quigley" match is based off of a movie about a fictitious character from Wyoming.....
Up in Kamloops we had our silhouette, and what we call our Quigley match this weekend. Our match director mentioned that one thing the movie didn't have that we did was wind :-). The lack of wind is some serious fiction
Chris.
RE: Inherently dangerous - Don McDowell - 06-22-2015
That's a true enough statement Chris>
RE: Inherently dangerous - loophole - 06-23-2015
Gentlemen,
The term "inherently dangerous" applied to an object or activity, has a legal definition. In most states using firearms is an inherent dangerous activity,
meaning that unless it is done with extreme concern for the safety of others, serious harm is likely to accure. In most states a shooter is strictly liable for any damage caused by his activity, without the need to prove negligence.
I have had shooters argue with me about using the term, but in most states if you handle firearms or shoot them, a court can make you pay for any mishap, no matter how careful you have been.
SK
RE: Inherently dangerous - Rick Mulhern - 06-23-2015
(06-23-2015, 12:12 PM)loophole Wrote: Gentlemen,
The term "inherently dangerous" applied to an object or activity, has a legal definition. In most states using firearms is an inherent dangerous activity,
meaning that unless it is done with extreme concern for the safety of others, serious harm is likely to accure. In most states a shooter is strictly liable for any damage caused by his activity, without the need to prove negligence.
I have had shooters argue with me about using the term, but in most states if you handle firearms or shoot them, a court can make you pay for any mishap, no matter how careful you have been.
SK
Could the same be considered for lawyers???
RE: Inherently dangerous - Kurt - 06-23-2015
No matter what your feelings are about the Quigley is, it is still the best around.
A lot of hard holders shoot this match and it is a tough match!
If I ever get top place at this shoot it would hang above every other match award on my wall.
As far as safety at the Q. I walked the line and shooters on line all have their rifles on the sticks pointed down range.
I still don't know for sure what caused the problem short of what the conversation was after it happen. I know Tony was running around looking for a bullet puller, but if it was for checking a few loads I don't know.
Accidents will happen. This will not pull me away from this match as long as I can shoulder a rifle.
There is more danger going the 1800 miles to this shoot then shooting it.
Kurt