I won't pretend to know why, how or how capable you are to go on any adventure you choose, but it's not a good idea to expect someone to try some of these dangerous tasks, you presume to be harmless. Your reasoning just seems to be opposite of whatever..... whoever says something/anything. Perhaps when dealing with horses, this is a good basic rule, but for a responsible person, it sounds a tad risky..... especially someone who is not exposed to these sorts of things.
That's not what I was trying to say, maybe that's what came across, but that isn't what I was trying to say.
If one doesn't have knowledge, doesn't want to do it, doesn't want to learn to do it, even if they know how to do it, but are put off to it due to an accident or something along those lines. That's fine.
Do not do it. No sense in one being scared while they are doing something that is dangerous.
However, that appears to be taken to an extreme level that want deny anyone even if they are highly capable of doing it (in terms of tools and knowledge), from doing it. My word, even changing batteries is considered a high risk endeavour now (some devices get bricked if the end user tries to swap them out, some devices they are not modular at all) and safety is cited as the highest area of concern for not even having user serviceable batteries (that were once user serviceable). So safety tend to be an excuse used way way too much in places that it really doesn't make sense to be there. Nothing in life doesn't come with risk, not to say that we need to over due it with risk, not at all, but there needs to be a happy medium between the two.
Back in the 90s, there were a lot of user serviceable items that are now no longer serviceable and safety is most often cited as the reason for this. Protection of IP is the other. I would argue that safety is just there to run smokescreen.
That is what my consternation is over. This fact that people shouldn't do this that or the other, without knowing much about if they are able to do so. For our own safety have to be locked out of all our devices/vehicles and everything is just taken as is. That's the problem that I have. Is that notion. There may be something that I wouldn't do, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think people should be locked out of it. Now, if one can show that there is absolutely no way that they can do something without a level 3 biohazard setup, yea, I think there is some room to deny something there.
I just think that there is an over reaction to go overboard one way.
Now with your horse portion, in actuality, the reasons that I mentioned (and I'm sure that there are other valid ones that I didn't think of) are actually doubled as one is dealing with not only a prey animal, but one that will pick up on your nervousness as well. That equals a big no bueno situation.