Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Wtc


evil dogooder

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 If the majority of shooters in our sport can only be sure of what THEY BELIEVE  the rules to say, and only a select few can really know "what the rules actually ARE", then the writing of the rules is obviously inadequate.   The "select few" need to share their background and knowledge through more comprehensive and clearly organized rule writing. 

I don't recall anyone saying anything about 'the majority of shooters.' Nor was anything said about a 'select few.' 

 

I think as shooters become more experienced with SASS they either become more familiar with the rules or become more aware that they don't have all the answers, or both. 

 

RO Instructors do share their knowledge, we call that process RO classes, which as far as I know you have chosen not to attend.

 

24 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

You can't run a fair or safe shooting organization with everyone having a different belief of what the rules mean or require.  If it's a RULE, it needs to have ONE intended meaning, and be crisply written to avoid the kinds of debate and misunderstanding we seem to get here on the WIRE over each of these WTC threads.  

 

Rule Book #1 should not have conflicting content to Rule Book #2.  When a published rule in our SHB  says that to "Sweep anyone" is a violation, then it has to mean ANYONE -- not anyone except some obscure exceptions known to a few, and scattered through a couple of other training manuals.  If those exceptions exist, they need to be footnoted and called out where the principal rule is printed.  That's especially true in shooting, if the exceptions allow unexpected things or things that do not follow common sense, like pointing firearms in unsafe directions, as in sweeping ones self (which BTW, is entirely avoidable, even during drawing/holstering if done with due diligence). 

Thank you for sharing your perspective on how things should be done.

 

24 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

Rules need to state what is allowed, required or prohibited.  There should not be overlapping or conflicting language in different sections or in different books, enabling different readers to have divergent or partial understanding  of what is meant.   Anyone should be able to read the SHB and KNOW (not just believe) what the actual rules ARE.  PWB very often simply cites the rules in responding here.  Any CRO/TO or any new shooter should be able to do the same and be correct.  The written rules should enable that by being concisely arranged, properly footnoted and clear.

 

I do realize that there will always be differing or new interpretations.  Some will point us toward valuable additions or revisions.  Others come from people with ill intent who TRY to bend rules to mean new things to their particular advantage.  The current Impeachment fiasco is an example or the latter.  Infringement on the clearly written Second Amendment is another.  But those I'll intended efforts need to be refutable by the clarity of the  written rules themselves.   (e. g.,  "shall not be infringed").  And the rules need to be arranged and indexed so they can be easily and quickly located.  The content of our SHB is really pretty logical and comprehensive, but nothing there is very easy to find, even if you routinely read the material over and over and over, as many of us here do.  You have to look at multiple places for nearly everything.  

 

 

If most WTC threads were a matter of simply reading the rule book we wouldn't need the thread in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I don't recall anyone saying anything about 'the majority of shooters.' Nor was anything said about a 'select few.' 

 

I think as shooters become more experienced with SASS they either become more familiar with the rules or become more aware that they don't have all the answers, or both. 

 

RO Instructors do share their knowledge, we call that process RO classes, which as far as I know you have chosen not to attend.

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective on how things should be done.

 

If most WTC threads were a matter of simply reading the rule book we wouldn't need the thread in the first place.

I suggest you look again about the RO classes.   So let's just dispense with ignorant personal jabs, and talk about substance here. 

 

I don't know of any other sport in which the rules have to be learned gradually by participants as they go along (at least not past their first match or two) or by taking training courses.  Things like skill-set improvement, efficiency tricks, are learned with experience but the rules of the game are fundamental and need to be clear and available to every participant at the beginning.   How could you play tennis, basketball or football or any other sport if half the players on the field haven't yet had the classes, and so have not progressed to a working knowledge of the rules yet?  In an individual competitive sport, that kind of disparity creates an uneven playing field.  

 

When we talk about the SHB, unfortunately, we do have to be talking about the majority of shooters and new shooters, all of whom have to be able to use the SHB content for  making choices and decisions.  When we are commonly having debates like this one, often among experienced CAS people, over rule meaning, that suggests there is a root problem that we should identify and correct. 

 

The RO classes are great for those who are want to advance their sport and are willing to officiate our matches.  The classes teach us how to conduct matches safely and properly, and make decisions about rule application.  But if we need two or more levels of training classes just for participating shooters to gradually understand our basic rules of the game (and not all of our shooters ever go through the classes) then we have a core problem to deal with.   I submit that the problem relates more to confusing organization of our rule presentation, rather than fault of our shooters. 

 

And you should not just assume that after years of CAS shooting, knowing the rules becomes a given.  Just this past weekend, as a TO, I had to correct a 15-year shooter, RO trainee, and club officer who was still unaware that long guns could not be staged with the entire trigger guard overhanging the table edge by 4".   What was worse, he/she didn't understand why.  

 

What I am seeking to accomplish here, is not just criticism.  I hear from a lot of our new and seasoned shooters who find the SHB hard to use and follow.  They would like to see our rules better organized, without having to search across several manuals for all of the applicable pieces and interpretations of each rule.   Just reading any of our WTC threads here, it becomes obvious that even among our experienced shooters, there is debate and room for more clarity.  The rules themselves are stated pretty clear, but they appear in pieces scattered throughout the SHB and other manuals.  If you try to create an Index, as some of us have done,  you end up with half a dozen pages  listed for every rule.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dusty Devil Dale, I hear what you are sayin'.

 

However, many of the issues that we are discussing here are nuances a bit beyond a working level of the rule book. And, there are some that we are talking about that are in those gray areas...

 

There are some deep crevices of any rule book that few realize are there and are waiting to be exploited by whomever takes advantage of it.

 

The NFL didn't have a rule against in-helmet communication devices until someone tried it.  The NFL then banned it, until they changed the rules again to allow them.

 

Did you know that, in the NFL, if you receive a kickoff, and lay yourself out to be touching out-of bounds when you field the ball that is still in the field of play, the ball is treated the same as the kick going out of bounds itself? It is a penalty on the kicking team. It is way in the weeds there, but it is. You don't need to know that rule to have a working knowledge of the game of football, but, it is there. 

 

NASCAR has a history of hiring creative crew chiefs who scour the rule book looking for those gray areas to exploit - thus creating imbalance in the playing field.

 

Like you, I have previously advocated for redesigning the rule book hand have often used USA Hockey's casebook as a starting point of the discussion: https://www.usahockey.com/rulesandresources

 

Their playing rules and case book does a good job of outlining not only the rules, but also 'cases' for application of the rules.  We would recognize those cases as WTC. But that, in itself, is a novel that the USA Hockey program doesn't even expect officials to fully understand for at least four years!

 

However, another problem that we have is that our rules are not locked down for any great length of time and change at least annually. By the time you get folks to learn the rules, the rule book is updated. Still more things to learn - or unlearn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

I don't know of any other sport in which the rules have to be learned gradually by participants as they go along (at least not past their first match or two) or by taking training courses.  Things like skill-set improvement, efficiency tricks, are learned with experience but the rules of the game are fundamental and need to be clear and available to every participant at the beginning.   How could you play tennis, basketball or football or any other sport if half the players on the field haven't yet had the classes, and so have not progressed to a working knowledge of the rules yet?  In an individual competitive sport, that kind of disparity creates an uneven playing field.  

With all due respect, I coached HS football for six years and I can tell you that many of the players, despite having played the game for years still did not know all the rules and given that the rules do get changed keeping up with the changes is a never ending process.  I'm not trying to make 'ignorant personal jabs' but I am trying to politely let you know that sometimes on these WTC threads you're biting off more than you can chew and you're making inaccurate statements about what the rules ARE.  That's a concern for me since as an RO Instructor one of my tasks is to try and make sure that the rules are understood and applied correctly and uniformly.  When you make an incorrect statement, such as 'sweeping yourself is a DQ' I feel obligated to correct the record.

 

I know for a fact that I don't have a perfect understanding of the rules, and there are occasionally WTC threads where I take a wait and see approach.  Once the WTC is clarified I'll ask follow up questions to be sure I have a full understanding of what's going on.  I'm politely suggesting that you might consider doing the same.

 

32 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

When we talk about the SHB, unfortunately, we do have to be talking about the majority of shooters and new shooters, all of whom have to be able to use the SHB content for  making choices and decisions.  When we are commonly having debates like this one, often among experienced CAS people, over rule meaning, that suggests there is a root problem that we should identify and correct. 

 

The RO classes are great for those who are want to advance their sport and are willing to officiate our matches.  The classes teach us how to conduct matches safely and properly, and make decisions about rule application.  But if we need two or more levels of training classes just for participating shooters to gradually understand our basic rules of the game (and not all of our shooters ever go through the classes) then we have a core problem to deal with.   I submit that the problem relates more to confusing organization of our rule presentation, rather than fault of our shooters. 

This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  Let's just say that not everyone shares your opinion.

 

32 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

And you should not just assume that after years of CAS shooting, knowing the rules becomes a given.  Just this past weekend, as a TO, I had to correct a 15-year shooter, RO trainee, and club officer who was still unaware that long guns could not be staged with the entire trigger guard overhanging the table edge by 4".   What was worse, he/she didn't understand why.  

This is a pet peeve of mine.  If you disagree with what I say, fine, say so.  But please, don't put words in my mouth.  I speak plenty enough without your help.  I never stated that after years of CAS shooting knowing the rules becomes a given.  I stated that "as shooters become more experienced with SASS they either become more familiar with the rules or become more aware that they don't have all the answers, or both.   I could add that some shooters do neither, they continue to have very strong, but uninformed, beliefs about what the rules are.  This is a failing on their part, not on the part of the SHB or the ROC.  Your statement about staging a rifle with the entire trigger guard exposed perfectly illustrates that.  

 

 

32 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

What I am seeking to accomplish here, is not just criticism.  I hear from a lot of our new and seasoned shooters who find the SHB hard to use and follow.  They would like to see our rules better organized, without having to search across several manuals for all of the applicable pieces and interpretations of each rule.   Just reading any of our WTC threads here, it becomes obvious that even among our experienced shooters, there is debate and room for more clarity.  The rules themselves are stated pretty clear, but they appear in pieces scattered throughout the SHB and other manuals.  If you try to create an Index, as some of us have done,  you end up with half a dozen pages  listed for every rule.  

 

It's not perfect that's for sure. But since it doesn't appear that it will be changed drastically in the near future I'm not sure what the point of your non-criticism is.  Do you think that people aren't aware of the rule books' strengths and weaknesses already?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Dusty Devil Dale, I hear what you are sayin'.

 

However, many of the issues that we are discussing here are nuances a bit beyond a working level of the rule book. And, there are some that we are talking about that are in those gray areas...

 

There are some deep crevices of any rule book that few realize are there and are waiting to be exploited by whomever takes advantage of it.

 

The NFL didn't have a rule against in-helmet communication devices until someone tried it.  The NFL then banned it, until they changed the rules again to allow them.

 

Did you know that, in the NFL, if you receive a kickoff, and lay yourself out to be touching out-of bounds when you field the ball that is still in the field of play, the ball is treated the same as the kick going out of bounds itself? It is a penalty on the kicking team. It is way in the weeds there, but it is. You don't need to know that rule to have a working knowledge of the game of football, but, it is there. 

 

NASCAR has a history of hiring creative crew chiefs who scour the rule book looking for those gray areas to exploit - thus creating imbalance in the playing field.

 

Like you, I have previously advocated for redesigning the rule book hand have often used USA Hockey's casebook as a starting point of the discussion: https://www.usahockey.com/rulesandresources

 

Their playing rules and case book does a good job of outlining not only the rules, but also 'cases' for application of the rules.  We would recognize those cases as WTC. But that, in itself, is a novel that the USA Hockey program doesn't even expect officials to fully understand for at least four years!

 

However, another problem that we have is that our rules are not locked down for any great length of time and change at least annually. By the time you get folks to learn the rules, the rule book is updated. Still more things to learn - or unlearn.

Thank you for an excellent discussion.  I have no disagreement with anything you wrote.  Useful insight.  

 

I do realize that everything isn't always black and white enough to clearly write a rule.   We certainly do have a bunch of grey areas and new situations requiring interpretation.  What I am trying to get at, is the scattering of pieces of already existing rules throughout the SHB, making all of the rules about any one thing difficult to find, and without any identified hierarchy to know which takes precedent, when language of different sections conflicts, (for example(s), the case of sweeping yourself, cited above, or the case of an unloaded firearm that falls from a table or prop and does not break the 170 rule.)   You can't find all of the rules about sweeping or about dropped firearms in one section, or even one book.  

 

It's not a "throw the evil book away" concern.  It's a simple reorganization fix of good material that already exists.  I note that in the past, there was less of a problem.   When I began CAS five years ago, the rule book was pretty easy to read and follow.  Someplace between then and now, sections have become divided up and somewhat mixed up, and some interpretations appear in the ROC manuals, but not the SHB.  It really is a relatively easy fix for a trained editor.  

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful input above.  Good food for thought.  DDD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Thank you for an excellent discussion.  I have no disagreement with anything you wrote.  Useful insight.  

 

I do realize that everything isn't always black and white enough to clearly write a rule.   We certainly do have a bunch of grey areas and new situations requiring interpretation.  What I am trying to get at, is the scattering of pieces of already existing rules throughout the SHB, making all of the rules about any one thing difficult to find, and without any identified hierarchy to know which takes precedent, when language of different sections conflicts, (for example(s), the case of sweeping yourself, cited above, or the case of an unloaded firearm that falls from a table or prop and does not break the 170 rule.)   You can't find all of the rules about sweeping or about dropped firearms in one section, or even one book.  

 

It's not a "throw the evil book away" concern.  It's a simple reorganization fix of good material that already exists.  I note that in the past, there was less of a problem.   When I began CAS five years ago, the rule book was pretty easy to read and follow.  Someplace between then and now, sections have become divided up and somewhat mixed up, and some interpretations appear in the ROC manuals, but not the SHB.  It really is a relatively easy fix for a trained editor.  

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful input above.  Good food for thought.  DDD

 

If you thought it was easy to read five years ago, you should have seen it 20 years ago. That was before people had to "If I", "Can You",  "What if" the game to the extent it is now. The last thing the rule book needs is to look like a damn law book. Maybe some people want the SASS rule book to read like a California code book.....I sure as hell don't. 

I don't mean any disrespect to you DDD. I'm just sick of all the lawyering crap that goes on for what should be a simple game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

If you thought it was easy to read five years ago, you should have seen it 20 years ago. That was before people had to "If I", "Can You",  "What if" the game to the extent it is now. The last thing the rule book needs is to look like a damn law book. Maybe some people want the SASS rule book to read like a California code book.....I sure as hell don't. 

I don't mean any disrespect to you DDD. I'm just sick of all the lawyering crap that goes on for what should be a simple game.

Doesn't have to read like a Code book, just be clear.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

 

With all due respect, I coached HS football for six years and I can tell you that many of the players, despite having played the game for years still did not know all the rules and given that the rules do get changed keeping up with the changes is a never ending process.  I'm not trying to make 'ignorant personal jabs' but I am trying to politely let you know that sometimes on these WTC threads you're biting off more than you can chew and you're making inaccurate statements about what the rules ARE.  That's a concern for me since as an RO Instructor one of my tasks is to try and make sure that the rules are understood and applied correctly and uniformly.  When you make an incorrect statement, such as 'sweeping yourself is a DQ' I feel obligated to correct the record.

 

I know for a fact that I don't have a perfect understanding of the rules, and there are occasionally WTC threads where I take a wait and see approach.  Once the WTC is clarified I'll ask follow up questions to be sure I have a full understanding of what's going on.  I'm politely suggesting that you might consider doing the same.

 

This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  Let's just say that not everyone shares your opinion.

 

This is a pet peeve of mine.  If you disagree with what I say, fine, say so.  But please, don't put words in my mouth.  I speak plenty enough without your help.  I never stated that after years of CAS shooting knowing the rules becomes a given.  I stated that "as shooters become more experienced with SASS they either become more familiar with the rules or become more aware that they don't have all the answers, or both.   I could add that some shooters do neither, they continue to have very strong, but uninformed, beliefs about what the rules are.  This is a failing on their part, not on the part of the SHB or the ROC.  Your statement about staging a rifle with the entire trigger guard exposed perfectly illustrates that.  

 

 

It's not perfect that's for sure. But since it doesn't appear that it will be changed drastically in the near future I'm not sure what the point of your non-criticism is.  Do you think that people aren't aware of the rule books' strengths and weaknesses already?

 

You might want to make sure that all of the rule interpretations you are referring to are formally written down in a format where all of the shooters can find and read them. 

 

You might also want use caution in documenting a rule interpretation specifically allowing shooters to point the muzzle of a firearm unsafely toward themselves.  Self-sweeping doesn't necessarily stop at sweeping hands or feet.  I've had the unhappy responsibility in the past, to deal with a number of self-inflicted accidental firearm injuries, some of which were fatalities.  It can and does happen -- and so do following family member lawsuits naming every connected individual or organization.   

So let's be very clear about what the rule is and is not.  Is the official SASS direction that self-sweeping is allowed and CROs/TOs and other Match Officials are directed to no-call all self-sweeping?  Be very careful in how you direct us.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 7:07 PM, Captain Bill Burt said:

There is no penalty for sweeping yourself. Crossdraw shooters often sweep themselves. Non crossdraw shooters often sweep their own feet. As RG stated this has been addressed on the Wire before (more than once).

 

20 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

It was determined MANY years ago that there is NO PENALTY for "self-sweeping" (for the reasons CBB noted)...REF: RO3

There ARE penalties for breaking the 170 (e.g. when reholstering into a X-draw), unsafe firearm handling (e.g. staging a long gun in an unsafe manner for downrange movement)...REF also: GF category regs.

 

In reference to the T/O "plucking" a stuck wad from the end of a SG barrel, the shooter would not be penalized for the T/O's action.

It could theoretically be done SAFELY by the shooter (e.g. w/action open & cleared) 

 

The ROC review is focused on what the shooter should be allowed to do in order to "make the firearm safe".

(as well as a few related "WtC?" Q&A's)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

You might want to make sure that all of the rule interpretations you are referring to are formally written down in a format where all of the shooters can find and read them. 

 

You might also want use caution in documenting a rule interpretation specifically allowing shooters to point the muzzle of a firearm unsafely toward themselves.  Self-sweeping doesn't necessarily stop at sweeping hands or feet.  I've had the unhappy responsibility in the past, to deal with a number of self-inflicted accidental firearm injuries, some of which were fatalities.  It can and does happen -- and so do following family member lawsuits naming every connected individual or organization.   

So let's be very clear about what the rule is and is not.  Is the official SASS direction that self-sweeping is allowed and CROs/TOs and other Match Officials are directed to no-call all self-sweeping?  Be very careful in how you direct us.  

 

 

 

 

Asked and answered previously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Asked and answered previously.

Works for me.

 

I wonder if our many host public ranges are aware we have that allowance/direction.  Usually they have quite restrictive firing line rules and gun handling requirements.  Ours certainly does. I've been through their Range Master training course.  If a shooter is seen pointing any loaded or unloaded firearm at any part of any person,  he/she is directed by the Range Master to immediately leave the firing line.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Works for me.

 

I wonder if our many host public ranges are aware we have that allowance/direction.  Usually they have quite restrictive firing line rules and gun handling requirements.  Ours certainly does. I've been through their Range Master training course.  If a shooter is seen pointing any loaded or unloaded firearm at any part of any person,  he/she is directed by the Range Master to immediately leave the firing line.   

 

Maybe you should contact them and ask Mr. Range Master? I’m sure that would make you even more popular!

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT:

 

I decided to edit out this reply.

There are far more important things to look after.

 

Cat Brules

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Maybe you should contact them and ask Mr. Range Master? I’m sure that would make you even more popular!

 

14 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Maybe you should contact them and ask Mr. Range Master? I’m sure that would make you even more popular!

Popular?  Is that an issue?

When it comes to shooter safety, and when I'm the individual elected as the Club's "Sheriff" and therefore am formally identified in our Bylaws as responsible for our club's safety program, damn right I'm going to look into our host range safety regs and any conflicts, and you can bet I'll sound off here to question and, when appropriate, object when I believe something is less than safe, regardless of how long it may have been in place or who supports it.  Popularity here has little to do with it.   

 

The simple fact is, if/when an accident occurs, nobody will care whether or not the rules require the shooter to receive a DQ.   Other priorities will quickly overshadow those petty concerns.  All prevention options are gone after it happens.  Our concern should be how to make the game and our rules of operation as safe as practicable and prevent that accident occurring.  We should never be discouraging or condescending toward shooters who bring safety issues forward, regardless of whether or not we've looked at them previously.  New shooters don't have that history, and they need to know the door is open, without a brow beating, for their safety input. 

 

A neighboring CAS club has already seen one shooter put a pistol bullet through their hand.  Different rules likely would not have prevented that, but it does show that CAS accidents can and do happen.  We don't want or need that kind of tragedy.  In my apparently unpopular opinion, We should never be allowing even borderline unsafe firearm practices.  Popular or not, that's the reality I have to address.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 7:33 AM, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Not likely

 

Too bad.  While the full scope of what DDD suggested would be a huge undertaking, this confusion could be solved rather simply.  If not with a footnote, at least look at the wording used.  In the first place in the SHB that mentions sweeping, it specifically says "other participants" and "another shooter".  In every spot after that it say "anyone" or "someone" (including on the pocket RO card.  If they just kept the "other person" wording, there'd be less confusion.  I mean, I remembered the thread and even I wasn't 100% sure I was correct about this after I read the rules. 

 

I almost typed No confusion, but I'm wise enough now to know that's not possible. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

Too bad.  While the full scope of what DDD suggested would be a huge undertaking, this confusion could be solved rather simply.  If not with a footnote, at least look at the wording used.  In the first place in the SHB that mentions sweeping, it specifically says "other participants" and "another shooter".  In every spot after that it say "anyone" or "someone" (including on the pocket RO card.  If they just kept the "other person" wording, there'd be less confusion.  I mean, I remembered the thread and even I wasn't 100% sure I was correct about this after I read the rules. 

 

I almost typed No confusion, but I'm wise enough now to know that's not possible. 

 

+++++++++

Exactly right.  The SHB fixes are pretty simple.  The whole book doesn't have to be revised.  90+% of it is fine.  Relatively few parts with conflicting language  just need editing or have added footnote references for clarity. 

 

 This thread should never have polarized so badly and personally.  All of us want the same things in the end.  

 

Thank you for taking a step back and interjecting some sensibility. 

 

Note:  I did make a couple edits to my last prior post, if you care to look them over.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

EDIT:

 

I decided to edit out this reply.

There are far more important things to look after.

 

Cat Brules

I really would like to have seen what you have to say.  Nobody should have to be hesitant to post here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I really would like to have seen what you have to say.  Nobody should have to be hesitant to post here.  

 

15 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

EDIT:

 

I decided to edit out this reply.

There are far more important things to look after.

 

Cat Brules


 

Dusty,

Oh, please don’t confuse my editing out my reply as a sign that I was intimidated, hesitant, or otherwise so influenced that I was “afraid” to speak my mind!  That won’t happen.  It would take a lot bigger gun than the pipsqueak blowhard, scolding tree squirrel making the rounds in this (and other) topics for that to happen.  I owe the squirrel for one, but being hospitalized and recovering from a painful surgery has me sidelined and distracted right now.  
 

I edited out my reply after reading a couple of the “prayer posse” topics, which put these arguments in perspective.  They reduce and diminish these to silly, petty status.  Thanks for your comments, Dusty.  Vaya con Dios.

 

Cat Brules

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cat Brules said:

 


 

Dusty,

Oh, please don’t confuse my editing out my reply as a sign that I was intimidated, hesitant, or otherwise so influenced that I was “afraid” to speak my mind!  That won’t happen.  It would take a lot bigger gun than the pipsqueak blowhard, scolding tree squirrel making the rounds in this (and other) topics for that to happen.  I owe the squirrel for one, but being hospitalized and recovering from a painful surgery has me sidelined and distracted right now.  
 

I edited out my reply after reading a couple of the “prayer posse” topics, which put these arguments in perspective.  They reduce and diminish these to silly, petty status.  Thanks for your comments, Dusty.  Vaya con Dios.

 

Cat Brules

 

Prayers, for a pain free and speedy recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

I always enjoy how a simple WTC evolves into a discussion about how the universe came about and if men can ever figure out women.

 

There's a theory out there that says if a man ever figures out women completely, we'd all be wiped out of existence immediately and women would be replaced with infinitely more complicated versions of themselves. 

 

There's  a corollary to that theory which states this has already happened a few times. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

 


 

Dusty,

Oh, please don’t confuse my editing out my reply as a sign that I was intimidated, hesitant, or otherwise so influenced that I was “afraid” to speak my mind!  That won’t happen.  It would take a lot bigger gun than the pipsqueak blowhard, scolding tree squirrel making the rounds in this (and other) topics for that to happen.  I owe the squirrel for one, but being hospitalized and recovering from a painful surgery has me sidelined and distracted right now.  
 

I edited out my reply after reading a couple of the “prayer posse” topics, which put these arguments in perspective.  They reduce and diminish these to silly, petty status.  Thanks for your comments, Dusty.  Vaya con Dios.

 

Cat Brules

Thanks for sharing.  I really hope your surgery was successful and you have a fast and full recovery.  You're right.  The Prayer Posse thread is totally sobering.  Sometimes we all forget how generously we are blessed and we allow ourselves to be distracted.  Then we look across at those less fortunate and return to reality.  Thank you for a bit of sanity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rance - SASS # 54090 said:

Uuuhhhh..:huh:

Is this horse dead yet??:wacko:

Not quite..... There’s still a couple more cow persons that got a kickin to administer!

If my figurin is correct, the equine whipping ought to die down about middle of the 4th page:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

Popular?  Is that an issue?

When it comes to shooter safety, and when I'm the individual elected as the Club's "Sheriff" and therefore am formally identified in our Bylaws as responsible for our club's safety program, damn right I'm going to look into our host range safety regs and any conflicts, and you can bet I'll sound off here to question and, when appropriate, object when I believe something is less than safe, regardless of how long it may have been in place or who supports it.  Popularity here has little to do with it.   

 

The simple fact is, if/when an accident occurs, nobody will care whether or not the rules require the shooter to receive a DQ.   Other priorities will quickly overshadow those petty concerns.  All prevention options are gone after it happens.  Our concern should be how to make the game and our rules of operation as safe as practicable and prevent that accident occurring.  We should never be discouraging or condescending toward shooters who bring safety issues forward, regardless of whether or not we've looked at them previously.  New shooters don't have that history, and they need to know the door is open, without a brow beating, for their safety input. 

 

A neighboring CAS club has already seen one shooter put a pistol bullet through their hand.  Different rules likely would not have prevented that, but it does show that CAS accidents can and do happen.  We don't want or need that kind of tragedy.  In my apparently unpopular opinion, We should never be allowing even borderline unsafe firearm practices.  Popular or not, that's the reality I have to address.   

 

Ok, so I'll throw my .02 in too. DDD, I don't think it's the questioning, or the differing opinion. We like that. Personally I think it is the way you go about it. 

I especially have a bad taste in my mouth when a feller uses fearmongering to try to validate a point. Throwing terms such as "lawsuits" and "clubs unsafe practices" and the like. Nobody wants that mess on a public forum. They should send a message to SASS concerning those things. Not air out what they suppose to be dirty laundry for all to see. It's in bad taste and disrespectful. I've witnessed those arguments in several threads and honestly I am suprised they are not immediately deleted by a moderator. Lord knows if some accident did occur, the very first thing an unscrupulous lawyer would do is scour this site to find anything that would perpetuate a frivolous lawsuit, so keep that in mind and don't be one of those people. Never resort to a holier than thou attitude to get a point across. It's very unbecoming and helps nobody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Ok, so I'll throw my .02 in too. DDD, I don't think it's the questioning, or the differing opinion. We like that. Personally I think it is the way you go about it. 

I especially have a bad taste in my mouth when a feller uses fearmongering to try to validate a point. Throwing terms such as "lawsuits" and "clubs unsafe practices" and the like. Nobody wants that mess on a public forum. They should send a message to SASS concerning those things. Not air out what they suppose to be dirty laundry for all to see. It's in bad taste and disrespectful. I've witnessed those arguments in several threads and honestly I am suprised they are not immediately deleted by a moderator. Lord knows if some accident did occur, the very first thing an unscrupulous lawyer would do is scour this site to find anything that would perpetuate a frivolous lawsuit, so keep that in mind and don't be one of those people. Never resort to a holier than thou attitude to get a point across. It's very unbecoming and helps nobody.

Frankly, I'm a bit amazed that you would attribute the issues with this conversation to me alone.  

I began with a simple response to a WTC thread.  Eventually PWB clarified the self-sweeping rule history.   I responded to PWB with a question about updating the SHB to reflect his clarification.  

Then several folks (until now, not including you) decided to gang up and shoehorn into that conversation to make absolutely sure I knew how little, I understood.   I responded as substantively as possible to a barrage of personally insulting and jeering posts, and my responses naturally delved deeper and deeper into justifying or explanatory detail.   Now you express sensitivity about my detailed responses.   You seem to want to walk back that entire discussion which now you realize contained legally leading comments about perceived "dirty laundry".   

 

I will say: when you don't want a detailed debate, then tell CBB and your friends not to start or perpetuate one.   The condescending tone of their posts forced more and more detailed responses -- responses which now you object to seeing in print here.   

 

This happened to be a safety issue under discussion.  I explained my situation and my viewpoint.  If you perceive there to be soiled laundry in that safety context, then certainly the laundry, not the messenger, deserves attention.  

 

I too saw surprising statements put into print here by CBB and others that I would prefer had not been written, trying to rationalize what I have called out as a questionably unsafe practice.  

 

I do think it is really important that all shooters be able to bring safety issues forward to reasonable people for reasonable consideration. The personal brow-beating which I received here, including your pointed criticism of "how I went about it" as the messenger, certainly is not conducive to that kind of atmosphere.   Again, if you don't want detail, then don't force it in the conversation.   Just accept and consider peoples' comments sometimes.  

 

Im fairly disgusted with this whole process at this point.  I likely am done with the Wire.  I won't be looking back, so there's no need for you to respond, at least not for my benefit.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Clark said:

Not quite..... There’s still a couple more cow persons that got a kickin to administer!

If my figurin is correct, the equine whipping ought to die down about middle of the 4th page:lol:

 

Is it over?

Close, Capt.; it's only Page 3.

Well, bye.

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple things that have been done round here the help new shooters understand are rules beyond the RO classes.

 

First, we have TOs who go out of their way to help new shooters understand nuances in the rules. For instance, most new shooters don't try to stage their long guns back on the table. They will tend to push them forward on the table. As a TO attempts to successfully help a new shooter navigate through a stage, they can give them pointers and hints. Additionally, I can hand off the timer after that new shooter has an opportunity to finish the stage, and, once they are unloaded, talk to him through what just happened. Point on things that maybe they didn't realize. They can also stand with them while other people are shooting and point out little things.

 

We also have several cowboys and cowgirls who put on shooter clinics. Some of these are tailored to ladies, new shooters, transitions, whatever, but these classes drive home the nuances in the rulebook help folks succeed.

 

now, it can be said, that not every club is going to have folks willing to do this. However, my experience, many of the successful clubs that do some of these things, they are able to hold on to new shooters longer. These new people grow faster. And, the game becomes more enjoyable for them quicker as they become more proficient and competitive quicker.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.