Do the 4 rules always apply?

[bwframe]

No. They don't always apply.

The 4 rules are very good practices to get into but it's quite silly to take pains to avoid sweeps once you've cleared a firearm. I've seen people handling firearms who've moved at weird and odd angles just to be sure they weren't sweeping themselves or others immediately after clearing...

...It's kind of amazing that no one was harmed since, according to some of you, it's so dangerous to sweep anyone with a firearm.

Tell me again how all those rules apply all the time?

...I'm in no way advocating we throw caution to the wind and start pointing guns at people whenever we like. I'm simply saying there's a safe way to handle firearms without following the four steps and sometimes, the four steps are overkill.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you associated with Revere's Riders firearms training organization? Is this Revere's Riders policy on firearms handling?

 

[MohawkSlim]

I was out tonight winning an ugly Christmas sweater contest at a local brewery and on the way home I pointed my Jeep at a lot of objects I didn't want to hit. Was it dangerous for me to do so? Should I have been more careful to only point my vehicle in a direction that avoided other vehicles? Even though I had my foot on the gas and brake, isn't it entirely possible that I could have crashed into another vehicle and, therefore, should always avoid pointing toward things I don't intend to hit? Should I only drive down straight roads so I avoid the possibility of running off the road when it curves?

How silly is that?

Yet, many of you (probably all of you) have no issue hurtling yourselves toward immobile objects and other humans at a high rate of speed several times a day. "Slim, that's the stupidest argument ever. It's a measured risk that's necessary. Plus I have my foot on the brake. I'm in control."

How silly would I sound getting on here and saying, "You should stay off the road because you can't ever be 100% sure those other drivers are going to stop when their cars are pointed at you."? Yet here you are on INGO telling us it's somehow "more dangerous" to have a gun pointed at you because it could be loaded and could go off and therefore, it's important to avoid pointing at yourself or others 100% of the time.

How do you apply that logic to one object that requires human operation but not all objects? Don't you tell anti-gunners all the time that your guns don't just go off all by themselves? That they're not dangerous "just because" and they require a human to operate them? That your "assault weapons" haven't assaulted anyone?

Either these things are simple mechanical devices that require humans to operate - and therefore can be made safe enough to handle - or they're really dangerous and we should be so scared of them that we ban them out of existence. Which is it, INGO? It can't simultaneously be both!

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you associated with Revere's Riders firearms training organization? Is this Revere's Riders policy on firearms handling?

I am a volunteer with Revere's Riders. At the events a variation of the 4 rules is strictly adhered to.

 

[bwframe]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you associated with Revere's Riders firearms training organization? Is this Revere's Riders policy on firearms handling?

...I am a volunteer with Revere's Riders. At the events a variation of the 4 rules is strictly adhered to.

Thank you for that information.
The variation?

 

[MohawkSlim]

The variation?

The wording.

 

[2A_Tom]

I'm curious. What is the exact wording of this variation?

I have considered looking into RR, not so sure now.

 

[jamil]

I was out tonight winning an ugly Christmas sweater contest at a local brewery and on the way home I pointed my Jeep at a lot of objects I didn't want to hit. Was it dangerous for me to do so? Should I have been more careful to only point my vehicle in a direction that avoided other vehicles? Even though I had my foot on the gas and brake, isn't it entirely possible that I could have crashed into another vehicle and, therefore, should always avoid pointing toward things I don't intend to hit? Should I only drive down straight roads so I avoid the possibility of running off the road when it curves?

How silly is that?

Honestly? It's as silly as the comparison. I've never heard someone who's hit something with a car by accident say, "I didn't know it was loaded". Pointing a car at something doesn't have the immediate results that pointing a gun has. It's okay to admit that.

Yet, many of you (probably all of you) have no issue hurtling yourselves toward immobile objects and other humans at a high rate of speed several times a day. "Slim, that's the stupidest argument ever. It's a measured risk that's necessary. Plus I have my foot on the brake. I'm in control."

But "a measured risk" isn't the argument I'd use. As above, I'd use the argument that it's a false equivalence. Because it is.

How silly would I sound getting on here and saying, "You should stay off the road because you can't ever be 100% sure those other drivers are going to stop when their cars are pointed at you."? Yet here you are on INGO telling us it's somehow "more dangerous" to have a gun pointed at you because it could be loaded and could go off and therefore, it's important to avoid pointing at yourself or others 100% of the time.

Well, guns tend to have more immediate consequences. With a gun the only thing that needs to go wrong is 1) a loaded gun 2) pointed at something or someone unintended to destroy, and 3) the trigger being actuated enough to discharge. You have to admit that the circumstances with cars are different enough that it's not as good for making your point as you'd like it to be.

But let's look at some areas where lessons from cars are more transferable to guns. I know from experience that I can better trust people who make their intentions clear. Cars or guns. A driver who signals lane changes and turns, and is watching traffic is much more trustworthy than a driver who weaves in and out of traffic and has his or her head down looking at their phone. Making your intentions clear helps others trust that you are paying attention and that you're mindful of the potential dangers of driving cars--or handling guns.

How do you apply that logic to one object that requires human operation but not all objects? Don't you tell anti-gunners all the time that your guns don't just go off all by themselves? That they're not dangerous "just because" and they require a human to operate them? That your "assault weapons" haven't assaulted anyone?

Either these things are simple mechanical devices that require humans to operate - and therefore can be made safe enough to handle - or they're really dangerous and we should be so scared of them that we ban them out of existence. Which is it, INGO? It can't simultaneously be both!

But that's a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only choices. Guns are a simple mechanical device (unlike cars, which, btw, are much more complex). They do require humans to operate, and generally require someone or some thing to actuate them to get them to fire. It is impractical never to have your gun pointed at something. If you are carrying it in a holster, it is pointed at something you probably don't want to destroy, your leg, your junk, your ass, the floor, your belly, the person behind you. But if you're holding the gun, then what it's pointing at has more meaning. The rule is partly about being careful to project the meaning you intend. If your intention is safety, then you'll act "safe". If your intention is recklessness, you'll act reckless.

And like many have said, the rules are about developing a mindset and not as much about a stringent set of rules to follow. It's as someone else said, your level of competence will determine what the rules mean to you, and experts know when to break the rules. Not everyone is an expert with firearms or at avoiding the occasional absentmindedness that most people tend to have.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Rule 1 failed. It was an interesting mental exercise, but there was nothing of real substance or value to it.

Soon thereafter, 3 instructive rules were added which cannot fail.

Why rule 1 was not abandoned at that time is unknown. It weakens rather than strengthens the rules which necessarily replaced it.

You don't think the "mental discipline" aspect of where to place a firearm, who to allow to touch a firearm, access, none of that applies to rule 1? It's only personal handling of a firearm that falls under Rule #1? Not sure I agree. If I clear a weapon and then decide where to put it, who will have access to it (possibly), where it goes when I transport it to the field...I think treating all firearms as if they're loaded applies to all of those "non-handling directly" situations and I think that "mental discipline" is still valid.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

In addition, there's other weapons/firearms I just happen on..."Hey Billy the six year old, hand me that rifle I've never seen." No - all firearms are loaded and Billy's only 6.

 

[Mark 1911]

Sometime last year a buddy and I were shooting handguns at the 25 yard range at Winamac. There was a couple next to us in their mid to late 60s, the woman was shooting a .357 revolver. She never took her finger off the trigger between shots and was sweeping the concrete pad and the canopy between every shot with large sweeping vertical arcs. At one point she turned to speak to her husband, finger on trigger, and started to sweep the other firing stations. My buddy and I backed up about 10 yards behind the firing line and waited for her to empty the cylinder on her revolver. She noticed us back up but she didn't appear to get the message. Once she emptied her revolver, we looked at each other and said let's go. Grabbed our stuff and packed it in for the day. We figured it wasn't worth saying anything to them at that point. We didn't want to be near them. All we wanted to do was leave.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Sometime last year a buddy and I were shooting handguns at the 25 yard range at Winamac. There was a couple next to us in their mid to late 60s, the woman was shooting a .357 revolver. She never took her finger off the trigger between shots and was sweeping the concrete pad and the canopy between every shot with large sweeping vertical arcs. At one point she turned to speak to her husband, finger on trigger, and started to sweep the other firing stations. My buddy and I backed up about 10 yards behind the firing line and waited for her to empty the cylinder on her revolver. She noticed us back up but she didn't appear to get the message. Once she emptied her revolver, we looked at each other and said let's go. Grabbed our stuff and packed it in for the day. We figured it wasn't worth saying anything to them at that point. We didn't want to be near them. All we wanted to do was leave.

Been there.
Done that.

 

[chipbennett]

I was out tonight winning an ugly Christmas sweater contest at a local brewery and on the way home I pointed my Jeep at a lot of objects I didn't want to hit. Was it dangerous for me to do so? Should I have been more careful to only point my vehicle in a direction that avoided other vehicles? Even though I had my foot on the gas and brake, isn't it entirely possible that I could have crashed into another vehicle and, therefore, should always avoid pointing toward things I don't intend to hit? Should I only drive down straight roads so I avoid the possibility of running off the road when it curves?

How silly is that?

Completely silly, both in practice and as an analogy.

The only reason that the inherent risk of automobiles is mitigated is because drivers adhere to a rather extensive set of driving regulations - regulations that are heavily enforced, and that are violated with deadly consequence.

Driving an automobile is far more complex - and far more risky - than handling a firearm. Driving an automobile on public roadways is also not a constitutionally protected, natural, civil right. Therefore, all the social-utility arguments for regulation of driving automobiles on public roadways apply - unlike with firearms.

 

[JettaKnight]

I was out tonight winning an ugly Christmas sweater contest at a local brewery and on the way home I pointed my Jeep....

First you try and equate a gun to a brick, now to a Jeep. What to try for a bratwurst next?

How about just talking about a gun as a gun? We're all smart enough and know the inner workings, mechanics, results, etc. of firearms. We don't need any metaphors to help us understand. You're simply using it as a distraction from the argument at hand.

Either these things are simple mechanical devices that require humans to operate - and therefore can be made safe enough to handle - or they're really dangerous and we should be so scared of them that we ban them out of existence. Which is it, INGO? It can't simultaneously be both!

This binary view is ridiculous to say the least. Do you have small children? Do you have kitchen knives? Either the knives are safe enough to be left anywhere or they shouldn't be in your home.

And Slim, equating anyone here with gun grabbers will not win you any points whatsoever. Stop it.

I am a volunteer with Revere's Riders. At the events a variation of the 4 rules is strictly adhered to.

Maybe, Slim, your thought process is, "At the range, strict adherence; in the shop, sweeping won't hurt anyone." I can see that; but I won't necessarily agree.


There's two types I fear - the people that are ignorant of the safety rules (like from Mark's anecdote at the range) and those that think they are smart enough that the rules don't apply to them (Slim).

The first group can be educated. Mark, as much as I too want to get out of Dodge when that happens, I also feel it's our duty to educate and enlighten.
"Wow, that's a nice revolver! I couldn't help but notice that you pointed it at my friend and a while you finger was on the trigger. Have you every heard of the Appleseed's four rules of firearm safety? (then proceed to list the rules which are more applicable to range situations)"
Following the Appleseed rules compels you to have a chat with her.

As to the second, well, humans are stubborn...


BBI posted something true. When you get to the point when you understand when a rule doesn't apply then you do dry fire drills, etc. But even then, no one here would do dry firing pointed at their wife! Why? because there is no reason to break the other rules and they should be followed for safeties sake.



TL/DR:

I think we all have common ground in that we can say that an unloaded gun should not be treated in the same fashion as an inoperable gun (or Slim's brick). Right?

Furthermore, an unloaded (and triple checked) gun, may, be handled in a fashion that would be unacceptable and very dangerous if the gun was loaded. However, this handling should be performed with care and purposefulness in mind; following the safety rules as much as possible, never violating them in blatant manner.

And lastly, a loaded gun should be handled with strict adherence to rules #2-4.

 

[JettaKnight]

You don't think the "mental discipline" aspect of where to place a firearm, who to allow to touch a firearm, access, none of that applies to rule 1? It's only personal handling of a firearm that falls under Rule #1? Not sure I agree. If I clear a weapon and then decide where to put it, who will have access to it (possibly), where it goes when I transport it to the field...I think treating all firearms as if they're loaded applies to all of those "non-handling directly" situations and I think that "mental discipline" is still valid.

I don't think that "mental discipline" can be transferred via five words.

See BBI's post.

 

[ATM]

You don't think the "mental discipline" aspect of where to place a firearm, who to allow to touch a firearm, access, none of that applies to rule 1? It's only personal handling of a firearm that falls under Rule #1? Not sure I agree. If I clear a weapon and then decide where to put it, who will have access to it (possibly), where it goes when I transport it to the field...I think treating all firearms as if they're loaded applies to all of those "non-handling directly" situations and I think that "mental discipline" is still valid.

In addition, there's other weapons/firearms I just happen on..."Hey Billy the six year old, hand me that rifle I've never seen." No - all firearms are loaded and Billy's only 6.

No, mental discipline is not a safe gun handling rule. It's very beneficial in life to practice and apply mental discipline, but we don't add every such practice and discipline to the specific list of safe gun handling rules, do we? We'd end up with hundreds of broad generalities cluttering the field rather the few and specific instructional points which should be adhered to.

If you trust Billy to safely handle guns, let him handle them - if not, don't let him handle them at all until he learns and proves that he can safely handle them.

Don't teach Billy to always pretend that guns are loaded - that just doesn't work - rather, teach him to safely handle guns regardless.

 

[chipbennett]

Don't teach Billy to always pretend that guns are loaded - that just doesn't work - rather, teach him to safely handle guns regardless.

This is precisely what I'm talking about: your complaint is nothing but semantics, based on a literal reading of Rule #1 that is absolutely not intended or implied by the rule. The entire purpose of Rule #1 is to handle firearms safely, regardless of whether or not they are loaded.

Over 150 posts' worth of digital ink, to argue over po-TAY-to vs po-TAH-to.

 

[Tombs]

I'm still constantly amazed by the people who tell me "I've been in the military" and "I have professional training" when I inform them that all guns are always loaded without exception, and sweeping me with a firearm is a life threatening gesture.

Why is it so hard for people to comprehend the 4 rules? I've never understood it. You don't question why sticking your hand into a table saw is a bad idea, why would you question why any other basic safety rule is any different? I can't think of a situation where the 4 rules are followed, that someone could be shot unintentionally. Unless someone thinks that a holstered firearm is no longer a firearm, in which case I can quite easily imagine some bad things happening.

If a firearm is disassembled, it is no longer a firearm. Just like if you remove the blade from a table saw, it is no longer a table saw and so those rules no longer apply.

Every time I think people would be able to handle other infantry weapons like grenades and the like, I'm slowly reminded of why it wouldn't go over so well if people seriously argue over 4 simple rules.

 

[BugI02]

Sigh. For the pedantic among us, here you go:

A couple of addendums ... the last shall be first.... and Voila!

• Never point [a loaded] gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger [of a loaded gun] until your sights are on target.
• Be sure of your target and what is beyond it [before pointing a loaded gun at it]
• All guns are always loaded.

Drawing the distinction between loaded and unloaded doesn't seem quite so sensible in this formulation, does it

 

[ATM]

This is precisely what I'm talking about: your complaint is nothing but semantics, based on a literal reading of Rule #1 that is absolutely not intended or implied by the rule.

Incorrect.

The entire purpose of Rule #1 is to handle firearms safely, regardless of whether or not they are loaded.

You've described the purpose and result of following the other 3 rules. How do you ascribe such purpose to rule 1?
And even if that was the intent of rule 1, it should have been abandoned when it failed in its purpose.

Rule 1 serves no beneficial or necessary purpose at all. What it practically achieves seems the opposite of the original intent behind it, which is why I claim it is worse than useless.

Over 150 posts' worth of digital ink, to argue over po-TAY-to vs po-TAH-to.

Far more if you count past threads on this same topic.

 

[prescut]

16 pages of posts in three days and;
I finally know why there are so many negligent discharges (ND) in this country.

 

[ATM]

16 pages of posts in three days and;
I finally know why there are so many negligent discharges (ND) in this country.

Negligent discharges occur, and worse, often have devastating effects, due to neglecting rules 2, 3, 4.

In this country, it became popular for a time to make a silly mantra the leading rule.

That time should be over.