Safety And Production Release Form: Fill & Download for Free

What we’re trying to do with the safety rules is cover a very broad range of users with a simple rule that helps lower the risks of handling firearms.Too many consumers, today, expect products to be engineered to protect them from their own folly. Rules that tell us firearms are “always loaded and should be treated as ready to fire” can act as a bucket of cold water to novice shooters with the average consumer mindset.I credit my father with instilling a safety mindset with firearms. Our only gun in the house, as I grew up, was a war-surplus .38 revolver. About the time I was 10 or 11 years old he sat me down and explained “the first rule,” which he explained thus:Every gun is loaded until you prove that it isn’t.This means any gun you pick up, or any gun someone hands you is loaded until you prove it is not loaded. That means checking the firearm properly, for safety of yourself and everyone around the area. Even if you watch someone empty and check the gun before handing it to you, never assume they did it right. Consider it loaded until you prove it’s empty. Dad followed that rule up with a second rule:Never let the muzzle point at anything you don’t want destroyed.Others describe this rule as always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Regardless of how it’s worded, I think it’s the #1 rule to obey. Even if you screw up checking the gun and it does fire, the biggest damage is only to your ego.Complacency is one of the biggest factors in safety, especially with dangerous equipment and firearms. People get comfortable and think their experience outweighs the safety rules.The closest parallel I can think of is the use of a pneumatic nail gun. Despite the safety mechanisms built into nail guns, workers can become complacent which results in an unintentional discharge. This happens between 14,000 up to 37,000 times a year according to the CDC - Nail Gun Safety - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic.I’ve used a photo, similar to this one, when helping teach novice shooters. It always draws a lot of moans & groans because it seems more people can relate to this kind of injury than the more serious injury photo below. The big difference is that nail guns shoot nails at low velocity but firearms use high velocity which causes more damage.And to be fair to carpenters, the way they use nail guns is significantly different than the way firearms are used. Most injuries seem to be the result of bad footing, lost balance on ladders and falls. But in too many of those cases they’ve not been trained to release the trigger of their nail guns, so if during a fall or a slip, if the gun makes contact with the body, the “bump plate” near the nose of the gun fires a nail. This reminds us of Rule #3:Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.Also known as keep your booger hook off the bang switch, it is reminder than we should always be very aware of where our trigger finger is and maintain disciplined control over it.As I said at the outset, we’re trying to cover a broad range of experiences with simply stated rules. These form a series of basic rules to observe for safety and serve to remind us that each and every one of us is responsible for safely operating a firearm.

Because “green” does not mean what you think it doesPolitical colours (image source)Green is a political colour, just like red, blue, yellow, purple, and black, to mention a few. Green ideology is not just about the environment — though that is one element of it — but also about many more things. Green ideology is also about these main tenets:Local controlLocal responsibilityDistributed productionDe-centralisationSelf-sustenanceThis in turn means that green ideology opposes:DependenceCentralisationCorporate controlCorporate ownershipConcentrated productionRelying on corporate responsibilityIn short: green ideology opposes Big Business.Nuclear power personifies all the points that green ideology opposes. Even with strict government regulation, we are heavily dependent on the corporations that operate nuclear power reactors, and we are completely left to them taking responsibility for the consequences of using nuclear power. Primarily this concerns hazardous waste, but also what happens in the case of a major malfunction, as exemplified by Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US and Fukushima I, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.So, without any hyperbole, it is accurate to say that political greens do not regard nuclear power as Politically Correct, in the original meaning of the expression.The unmarketable opinionThe problem for the greens — and some reds, that share a few of the tenets as listed above — is that this argument is completely useless when it comes to persuading the general public to join them in the opinion “nuclear power is bad”.If you would have heard someone say “Nuclear power is okay — in practice — but we are ideologically opposed to Big Business, therefore we have a hangup regarding nuclear power”, you would most likely have responded “Good for you, but I have no qualms about letting a corporation produce my energy, as long as it works”.So the greens turn to arguments that everyone can get behind.“Nuclear releases radiation”“Nuclear = weapons”“Nuclear is expensive”“Nuclear waste”…and so on. The ideological argument is bust, so they try with the altruistic ones.The thing is, most of those arguments are bogus, especially the safety argument. Nuclear is the safest form of energy production. The greens are wrong in many of their altruistic claims about nuclear power.

It kills me that most broadcasts never show you what the safeties are doing unless they blow coverage. A full 22-man view would finally allow even lay fans to quickly assess coverage cause and effect.For example, the defence is playing a deep zone, the #1 WR is passed onto a safety and the QB should make the read to go underneath. You'd be able to see the safety read the QB and vice versa, as well see how hard it is to defend when the QB gets time or makes quick reads.Right now, all we see is the quarterback drop back and look thoughtful. It's a strange convention if you think about it. The pass rush, coverage and QB's ability to check down and release all combine to form a dynamic that only makes sense when the entire play is seen.More than merely revealing player mistakes, I think the 22-man view would show us just how terrible most colour commentary is. Isolating a play down to the actions of one or two notable high-profiles stars is usually pointless. It's a team game and this is reinforced whenever you take the blinders of tightly packaged TV production off.