Do the 4 rules always apply?

[bwframe]

I think people are wont to act however they choose, and will use whatever means necessary to justify/defend their choices/behaviors. So, no: I don't agree that Rule #1 has had the effect you describe; though I will readily admit that there are likely many who would attempt to use Rule #1 to justify unsafe behavior.

There are only a small handful of folks who are "too smart" for the Four Rules. They are obnoxious though. Some are just flat out dangerous, the rest you just wonder about and watch closely, waiting...

 

[Yup!]

I was just "cautioned" on the four rules... the range I go to has a table behind the shooting line. I brought my AR in to shoot, it was disassembled and in a case. I opened the case, put the upper on the lower, pushed in the pins with the rifle in a horizontal position. I then rotated it to vertical and carried it to the line with the muzzle pointed up. No mags.. On the way to the line the RSO reminded me to keep it pointed up or down at all times..

 

[ATM]

I think people are wont to act however they choose, and will use whatever means necessary to justify/defend their choices/behaviors. So, no: I don't agree that Rule #1 has had the effect you describe; though I will readily admit that there are likely many who would attempt to use Rule #1 to justify unsafe behavior.

Why would many think rule #1 could be used to justify unsafe behavior? How would they logically deconstruct it in making such an attempt?

 

[ATM]

Yeah I don't buy your theory ATM. Sorry Bub. Rule #1 should be the only rule we need in a perfect world.

What theory? Why haven't you abandoned the failed theory that required a perfect world? Without instruction on what exactly should be done and what exactly should be avoided, how would teaching people that guns are always loaded make their handling any safer? It sure didn't work in this world.

I actually prefer Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded but I get the emphasis of how Col. Cooper coined his phrase.

It seems to me that your preferred variant implies even more directly (than the shortened logical fallacy version) that unloaded guns may indeed be handled unsafely, so just treat them like the guns which should be handled safely.

WHY? What is the purpose of this unnecessary circular nonsense?

Convincing people that safe handling practices only apply to loaded guns, so they must never forget to treat them all as though they are.

Isn't it simpler and more effective to just have folks handle guns safely until there is some real compelling reason not to?

Does simply knowing a gun is unloaded truly compel people to ignore safe handling practices? What's the upside when you're correct? What's the downside when you're mistaken? This could be simple risk vs reward caveman logic if rule #1 had never caught on making people more prone to fatally outsmarting themselves.

Now I will admit that the 4 rules does not work very well as a set of administrative range rules. Why because most shooting sports recognize or require a cold range. All guns can't be loaded if we tell people they have to unload them. At the very core of the issue there is really no difference between the 3 and 4 rules.

I make no attempt to compare safe gun handling with range or sport rules.

 

[chipbennett]

Why would many think rule #1 could be used to justify unsafe behavior? How would they logically deconstruct it in making such an attempt?

Given that I think doing so is illogical, I can't answer your question.

IMHO Rule #1 is reasonable and logical, and facilitates a mindset of safe firearms handling.

 

[BugI02]

Rule #1 has always seemed to me to be a direct refutation of the mindset that 'I believe this particular gun is unloaded thus I can safely ignore the other rules'. I always took it as a direct response to the ' but...but.... it wasn't loaded, how could there be a hole in you?' I am with Chip, #1 is there to short circuit the mindset that one believes one knows the weapon to be unloaded and thus can 'safely' violate the other 3. Act is correct, people are ​fallible and thus even if you have cleared a weapon I still don't want it pointed at me and mine.

 

[rhino]

It's interesting to me that some people view rule #1 as reinforcing that idea that there aren't separate rules for handling unloaded guns and loaded guns, whereas others interpret it as actually encouraging the idea that there are different rules for handling loaded vs. unloaded guns. Clearly there exist a problem somewhere along the way since it can't mean both.

I am more troubled by "cold ranges," as I've seen too many instances where the policy encourages people to believe there are different rules for handling unloaded vs. loaded guns. It also encourages people to believe they are "safe" because all of the guns are unloaded. Somehow they believe that a rule will ensure that all of the guns really are unloaded. It's like people who step into a crosswalk with oncoming traffic because the law requires the vehicles to yield to them. The traffic regulation doesn't do a great job of trumping the laws of Newtonian physics when the person driving isn't paying attention, is ignorant of the rules, or there is a mechanical failure of their brakes or steering.

 

[Spear Dane]

1. The Four Rules always apply.

2. Calling out unsafe behavior has consequences. People are defensive. Be advised.

On the other hand, NOT calling out unsafe behavior can have consequences. Deadly ones. I would call em out, respectfully and politely, but do it.

 

[Tombs]

What theory? Why haven't you abandoned the failed theory that required a perfect world? Without instruction on what exactly should be done and what exactly should be avoided, how would teaching people that guns are always loaded make their handling any safer? It sure didn't work in this world.



It seems to me that your preferred variant implies even more directly (than the shortened logical fallacy version) that unloaded guns may indeed be handled unsafely, so just treat them like the guns which should be handled safely.

WHY? What is the purpose of this unnecessary circular nonsense?

Convincing people that safe handling practices only apply to loaded guns, so they must never forget to treat them all as though they are.

Isn't it simpler and more effective to just have folks handle guns safely until there is some real compelling reason not to?

Does simply knowing a gun is unloaded truly compel people to ignore safe handling practices? What's the upside when you're correct? What's the downside when you're mistaken? This could be simple risk vs reward caveman logic if rule #1 had never caught on making people more prone to fatally outsmarting themselves.




I make no attempt to compare safe gun handling with range or sport rules.

I understand your reasoning, I do.

You seem to imply that the first rule is a philosophical one and not a physical one, which is where I think the reasoning is flawed.

Perfect worlds don't exist, people violate rules and attempt to outsmart them. That doesn't mean the rule has failed, that means stupid people exist. It's the same reason we need to make laws, have police, and prisons.

If it wasn't for politics, we could write a more effective version of the first rule, without a doubt. But if we did that currently, we'd be signing ourselves onto some heavy legislation in short order.

 

[jamil]

I understand your reasoning, I do.

You seem to imply that the first rule is a philosophical one and not a physical one, which is where I think the reasoning is flawed.

Perfect worlds don't exist, people violate rules and attempt to outsmart them. That doesn't mean the rule has failed, that means stupid people exist. It's the same reason we need to make laws, have police, and prisons.

If it wasn't for politics, we could write a more effective version of the first rule, without a doubt. But if we did that currently, we'd be signing ourselves onto some heavy legislation in short order.

Rule 1 is a philosophical one. I don't see a problem with that. If it is at all offensive it is certainly worth no where near the whining against it in this thread.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

I'm surprised you guys even go into gun stores - every time you walk past a display case, you're SWEEPING YOURSELVES with DOZENS of guns!

Near critical lack of common sense in this thread, but of course

 

[bwframe]

I'm surprised you guys even go into gun stores - every time you walk past a display case, you're SWEEPING YOURSELVES with DOZENS of guns!

Near critical lack of common sense in this thread, but of course

This thread is a great read if folks just would. The Four Rules apply to gun handling.

 

[Tombs]

I'm surprised you guys even go into gun stores - every time you walk past a display case, you're SWEEPING YOURSELVES with DOZENS of guns!

Near critical lack of common sense in this thread, but of course

There's a difference between a gun sitting on a rack and one being manipulated by someone.

If I lay a gun on a counter after checking it out, I won't pick it back up if someone is standing down wind of the muzzle.

 

[ATM]

...If it wasn't for politics, we could write a more effective version of the first rule, without a doubt. But if we did that currently, we'd be signing ourselves onto some heavy legislation in short order.

I'm not sure what politics or legislation has to do with this. We're talking about safe gun handling, not criminal law.

There is no need for a more effective version of rule 1, it simply needs to be forgotten.

Following rules 2, 3 and 4 is safe gun handling. Any attempt to add to that fact only takes away from it.

 

[ATM]

It's interesting to me that some people view rule #1 as reinforcing that idea that there aren't separate rules for handling unloaded guns and loaded guns, whereas others interpret it as actually encouraging the idea that there are different rules for handling loaded vs. unloaded guns. Clearly there exist a problem somewhere along the way since it can't mean both.

People who really desire a first rule that reminds them to handle all guns safely should be just as happy with this:

RULE #1 Follow these rules when you handle a gun!

But, they won't be happy with that because they really have adopted the belief (or conditioned themselves to believe) that only loaded guns deserve safe handling. So... they tend to like the more specific reminder to believe all guns are actually loaded or at least to treat unloaded guns like loaded guns, or something like that.

The funniest notion is that anyone who doesn't need or support such an absurd reminder codified as an actual rule is considered "too smart" without any further regard to how diligently they actually practice safe gun handling.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Why would many think rule #1 could be used to justify unsafe behavior? How would they logically deconstruct it in making such an attempt?

Uncle Sam taught us to unload and clear firearms, point them at people, and pretend to destroy them.

Since a large percentage of gun owners are vets, it makes sense those "rules" are carried over. When Col. Cooper, or any of the other pseudo-celebrity trainers attempt to instill knowledge into civilians they have to dumb it down so accidents are minimized. Even though many of us who served are potatoes, we proved we could follow directions. If Sarge said unload that weapon, we did. When civilians show up to class, we're not sure if they can follow directions or not so we make the rules harder instead of making rules that are harder to follow.

I had a big name trainer tell me, "Maybe YOU can do _____, but the vast majority of people who take my class are noobs, and they don't need to be worrying about all those extra _____." In short, he'd altered his curriculum to reach the lowest common denominator. Most programs do the same and thusly, have simpler rules that are more strict than they have to be.

If you're trained well enough you can safely make your own rules.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If you're trained well enough you can safely make your own rules.

DEA Agent Lee Paige? Is that you?

Paige is the only one professional enough to make s**t up on the spot and demand to acknowledged as "trained".

 

[Reagan40]

Years ago, when I was fairly young, I went to an outdoor range to sight in my shotgun for deer season. I had a REALLY good day. I somehow achieved a sub MOA group of 3 shots with my 12 gauge. I'm talking one big ragged hole. It was not my ability, it was pure luck. This was noticed by a gentleman in his 70's that felt it appropriate to turn and talk to me about what kind of gun I was shooting. (It was a simple Remington 870). As he turned, he had the muzzle of his single shot 12 gauge pointed right at me. I saw him shoot right before he turned my direction. I knew his gun did not have a live round. The "logic" side of my brain realized I was in no danger. Every other part of me was terrified and angered by the fact that I was looking down the barrel of another person's shotgun. I still remember the feeling. Even when looking at a gun in a gun shop that the shop employee and I have both verified to be unloaded, I still refuse to point any gun in an unsafe direction. If for nothing else, so someone else does not feel the way I did years ago at the range. I also know, that as long as I keep this practice, I will never have an accident that ends in tragedy. I don't understand why this seems to be so inconvenient to some.

 

[JettaKnight]

Uncle Sam taught us to unload and clear firearms, point them at people, and pretend to destroy them.

Since a large percentage of gun owners are vets, it makes sense those "rules" are carried over. When Col. Cooper, or any of the other pseudo-celebrity trainers attempt to instill knowledge into civilians they have to dumb it down so accidents are minimized. Even though many of us who served are potatoes, we proved we could follow directions. If Sarge said unload that weapon, we did. When civilians show up to class, we're not sure if they can follow directions or not so we make the rules harder instead of making rules that are harder to follow.

Good grief. Do you ever stop putting your foot in your mouth? So now civilians are too dumb to handle guns safely without a different set of rules?

If you're trained well enough you can safely make your own rules.

It's this level of egotism that's scary.


I sure there's no study of ND's but I think the Hurt Report is somewhat applicable. It showed that there is a marked increase in motorcycle collisions for those with 2-5 (IIRC) years of experience. The reason being is that riders with some experience overestimated their skills and underestimated the risk. After five years of experience, riders realize that yes, they are vulernable and safety is key for all riders.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If you're trained well enough you can safely make your own rules.

Here are more highly trained operators making up their own rules: Chicago Police Fatally Shoot 2, Including 55-Year-Old Woman 'Accidentally' - ABC News

Let's see how the defense "we are so highly trained that we can shoot 55 year old women because we don't have to follow the Four Rules" goes over in Chicago.