Is a properly holstered handgun considered "safe"?

[Kirk Freeman]

How many people need to get shot in gun shops and gun shows before the gun culture admits that the Four Rules are a good idea?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...who tell me that there is no way this could have happened as the gun was not low-dead. When I ask them about the First Rule in that all guns are always loaded, I get the same little kids argument that I get in the gun culture at gun shows or gun shops. "Nuh uh, no, it taint."

You know what that sounds like?

Or, the first one is obvious BS statement that is not instructive and that leads to a "well, if it isn't loaded then..." mentality

Gosh, if only someone had told them to handle a weapon the same regardless of loaded/unloaded status, huh? Then it wouldn't matter if they thought it was loaded or not, because it's irrelevant to safe gun handling and the procedures would then be the same.

Oh, sorry. I mean, Garsh, if'n only somebuddy tolt im to not be a pointin that thar gun at somebuddy if'n it's loaded or if'n taint. An' don be goin' n' pullin' no triggers if'n you ain't a-meanin' to shoot sumthin' rite then, if'n it's loaded or if'n taint. Bein' loaded or not ain't got nuthin' to do with handlin' that thar gun proper like.

 

[Thor]

How many people need to get shot in gun shops and gun shows before the gun culture admits that the Four Rules are a good idea?

Apparently, all of them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gosh, if only someone had told them to handle a weapon the same regardless of loaded/unloaded status, huh?

Apparently they do not learn this in gun shops of Indiana as it is acceptable to point guns at people.

Pointing guns at people? Isn't there a law against this or something?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Apparently, all of them.

Yeah but we'll show those a-holes that try to foist the Four Rules on us, now won't we! We are special snowflakes!

Come to think of it, is this a daddy issues thing? I don't want to follow the Four Rules because my mean old Dad does kind of thing? And he's not hip and cool like me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Apparently they do not learn this in gun shops of Indiana as it is acceptable to point guns at people.

Pointing guns at people? Isn't there a law against this or something?

If done knowingly and intentionally, yes. Misdemeanor if unloaded, felony if loaded. (Actually loaded, not just identifying as loaded).

If your client was charged with sweeping someone in a gun store, what would your argument be? Probably attack the knowingly and intentionally part, right?

And, yes, it's a violation of safety rules. Recall: Garsh, if'n only somebuddy tolt im to not be a pointin that thar gun at somebuddy if'n it's loaded or if'n taint.

 

[ckcollins2003]

I guess what bothers me the most is whats the end game of arguing that one can't ALWAYS completely obey the four rules. We grant you certain contrived examples where perfect compliance is unpossible. Does this mean you want to leverage this into dispensation to point a weapon in any way or at any person that you wish because it was cleared by an operator? Not going to happen. If the shoe was on the other foot, would you want me to sweep you with a weapon that I - and only I - had just cleared. Here I expect you to add information about your vast real world experience with firearms as if that makes a difference. It doesn't, it just moves the need for information from the weapon's state of potential lethality to the 'operator's' competance to confirm same. And if the 'operator' is arguing doggedly against adherence to simple, common sense safety measures then I already know more than enough to decide about his competence. You and your buddies or like minded people can do what you like among yourselves, there are always stupid prizes up for grabs. It will never be ok with me for you, or anybody else, to carelessly sweep me. I can contrive certain circumstances wherein, say, 'what goes up must come down' doesn't necessarily apply - such as if I'm freely accelerating in a uniform gravitational field. That doesn't mean I want to jump off the fifth floor of the parking garage. You have correctly ascertained that a number of us disagree with your position. Time to make the jump where you realize we never will.

I almost didn't submit this, because I know it won't change anything... once someones head starts running and they start spouting off about how people disagreeing with them are incompetent and compare it to jumping off of a building, well, there's not really anything you can say to change their outlook. But here you go.

You're taking this the wrong way. Not a single person is advocating going around and pointing your weapon at everyone all the time or waving your gun around. Nobody is advocating negligent handling of a firearm, we are simply stating that those 4 rules cannot be followed 100% of the time. We are stating that there is a difference between "unsafe" and "safe" ways of carrying and that you can break those rules while being completely safe. For example, while you may think appendix carry is "unsafe" because it violates the 4 rules, we are simply saying that it is no different than strong side carry, as long as your gear is fit for the job it is just as safe. It's not the "rules" that make the handling of a firearm safe. It is how the person handles the firearm, which can change between each scenario and training exercise. Even during drills you can break those rules as long as you have double or even triple checked to make sure that the firearm is completely clear and that there is no way for ammunition to be put into that weapon.

The safety of yourself and others relies on you. A firearm is simply a tool and when it's completely clear, it's nothing more than a paperweight. Those people you hear about being "shot with an unloaded gun"... they obviously weren't shot with an unloaded gun. Someone didn't clear that weapon... you can't say that people are shot with an unloaded gun, because it's physically impossible. They might say it's unloaded to save their ass in a legal battle, but we as gun owners all know better. The breaking of the rules does not mean negligence. You simply have to stop being ignorant and take the time to understand the difference.

Actual training will break these rules. There's just no possible way to do real life situation training than to break these rules, which is why it is imperative that the instructor and the students take the time to make sure that everything is right.

By the way, you spelled "competence" wrong and "unpossible" is not a word. (I just wanted to point that out because I, personally, thought it was hilarious... and yes, I know I'm an ass)

 

[Thor]

I think the difference seems to be willfully ignoring the 'rules' (which may be more like 'guidelines') as opposed to trying your best to follow them but existing in the actual world.

Since a young lad I have always done my best to not point weapons at folks I didn't want to shoot. If I inadvertently did then I'd try to correct that immediately on noticing.

 

[Woobie]

They do and people get shot dead in them because that raffle gon ain't "low-dead".

We ain't wearing no salad suit and got no badge. Not similarly situated and not the same level of immunity.

If you shoot someone dead snapping in on another, you just don't zip up Private Snuffy in a bag and carry on. There will be red lights and people in brown or blue asking questions.



It does not. If the 1911 or the other guns I carry suffer a mechanical failure and discharge without fingers on triggers, hey, have I told you guys about the 870 at Shootrite, it will ruin pants, but not draw blood.

I may live a protected life but I am continually dismayed at the rationalizations of less than optimal gunhandling in the gun culture. To me this is important as any group that does not regulate itself will be regulated from the outside. I talk to people, many through chicken wire reinforced glass, who tell me that there is no way this could have happened as the gun was not low-dead. When I ask them about the First Rule in that all guns are always loaded, I get the same little kids argument that I get in the gun culture at gun shows or gun shops. "Nuh uh, no, it taint."

The more we rationalize pointing guns at people, the more opportunity there will be to attack our liberties from outside the gun culture.

Just as a way of clarifying the way the army works, ammunition arrives at the range, and is accounted for. (Not totally fool-proof) you clear yourself, get cleared off the range by a safety, use a clearing barrel. Ammo is not supposed to leave the range. Then before you enter a building, you use another clearing barrel. So a number of steps are taken. And if someone were to be shot, it's not just the shooter who burns. There is no immunity for us, outside of ROE's in theatre. So believe me, people don't cut corners on that kind of stuff. Many units won't let the kind of stuff happen like I described earlier, but I've been in others that did. I only point it out to illustrate it is done, and in a way that no one gets shot. Mechanical devices fail, but empty guns can't make stuff fly out the end of the tube.

I don't want to be misunderstood, here. All I am pointing out is that people who claim they never break any of the rules are lying. In fact, most people break one of the rules on purpose, and I have some examples in my other post. I just get tired of the sanctimonious attitude. The rules are great, but instead of denying we make exceptions, let's think about when and how exceptions are made, and be sure we are following protocols to eliminate the hazards. An example would be not having ammunition in the room when you dry fire practice. You are putting you finger on the trigger, even though you do not intend to discharge a round. The protocol eliminates the hazard associated with breaking a rule. As far as pointing a firearm at someone in the civilian world goes, the IC lays out the specific instances where that is legal. There really isn't a need to do so in any other circumstance. Holstered weapons do become oriented toward other people. Sit down at a restaraunt and the person across from you will probably have a pistol oriented toward his leg, so forth and so on.

You're not quite as good at the effected accents as Harley Rider

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If your client was charged with sweeping someone in a gun store, what would your argument be?

Two part:

1. Why do you hate Liberty? I can do what I want because I know the gun is loaded and stuff.
2. You aren't my dad, you can't tell me where to point my gun.

Is that it? I got the counterarguments to the Four Rules covered right?

Not a single person is advocating going around and pointing your weapon at everyone all the time or waving your gun around.

Well, that's good to hear.

we are simply stating that those 4 rules cannot be followed 100% of the time.

Because . . . (I want to know as an insight please).

 

[bwframe]

The more we rationalize pointing guns at people, the more opportunity there will be to attack our liberties from outside the gun culture.

Golden words. Too bad there are those among us who simply refuse to hear them.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Because . . . (I want to know as an insight please).

Already mentioned why. I'm not going to argue... there's no great deed that comes from winning an argument on the internet. You have your reasons for believing what you do and I have mine. America is great, isn't it?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Two part:

1. Why do you hate Liberty? I can do what I want because I know the gun is loaded and stuff.
2. You aren't my dad, you can't tell me where to point my gun.

Is that it? I got the counterarguments to the Four Rules covered right?

BS. At least have the honesty to say you'd attack knowingly and intentionally.

I get lawyers or going to lawyer, but really, if someone disagrees with you they are a child with daddy issues and a speech impediment? If you have to resort to that sort of shenanigan, then your underlying argument must be pretty weak.

So, without derision and shenanigans if you can manage it, what's the issue with "treat all guns the same, loaded or unloaded" as a replacement for "all guns are loaded"? The first is instructive, doesn't offer the out of "well, this one isn't" and eliminates that entire line of thought of two ways to handle a gun. You've listed the failures of the existing rule yourself multiple times. You can't tailor people to fit your instruction, you have to tailor your instruction to fit people.

1) Don't point guns at things you aren't willing to destroy...
2) Know your target and backdrop...
3) Don't put your finger on the trigger until ready to fire...
4) Apply all rules to any firearm mechanically able to fire, regardless of loaded/unloaded status...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just as a way of clarifying the way the army works,

Army? The INGO Army? The vast majority of us do not have a salad suit or a badge. We are on our own.

People get shot in ready up/snapping in drills in gun schools, gun shows and gun shops. Remember Gunsite 2004? Two guys snapping in on each other after class at Gunsite. The pistol magically loaded itself and a man fell dead. "But it wasn't loaded" Ah, so it must have been OK then.

Ken Campbell, the current COO of Gunsite, tells about a Marine who was dry practicing with his unloaded M14. The round went the entire length of the hotel and it was Ken and the Marine who had to open each door to do a body check. All because the gun was unloaded, er, unlow-dead.

People get shot because the shooters think they are special snowflakes and do not have to follow the Four Rules and give endless rationalizations (I know, I have heard them) about why that gun was not loaded.

Everytime someone gets shot in a gun shop for example is another strike against us as a collective. It makes us look like dangerous simpletons that cannot be trusted with the guns we bray we have a right to.

 

[Woobie]

Two part:

1. Why do you hate Liberty? I can do what I want because I know the gun is loaded and stuff.
2. You aren't my dad, you can't tell me where to point my gun.

Is that it? I got the counterarguments to the Four Rules covered right?



Well, that's good to hear.



Because . . . (I want to know as an insight please).

No yew down't. Yew jes wanna ar-gyew. Utherwise yew wuld've red the ansser to yer kweshtyun alredee.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Golden words. Too bad there are those among us who simply refuse to hear them.

I believe the opposite of this. The more we pretend, the more ammo we give them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I get lawyers or going to lawyer, but really, if someone disagrees with you they are a child with daddy issues and a speech impediment?

No, but certainly a element of repressed daddy issues present.

So, without derision and shenanigans if you can manage it, what's the issue with "treat all guns the same, loaded or unloaded" as a replacement for "all guns are loaded"?

Not as definitive as "All guns are always loaded".

If you have warning signs, they must be enormous. If you have rules, they must be definitive. Watering down Rule #1 to prevent the whining and rationalizations to break it do a disservice to the gun culture.

 

[BugI02]

The people that answer the phone? Well, at least telephone operators know not to point guns at me in the gun shop.

"Mr. Freeman, Clint Smith on Line 3. He says 'don't point the gun at people that don't need to be shot, numbnuts'."

I Am Not An Operator. Neither Are You. | Vuurwapen Blog

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No yew down't. Yew jes wanna ar-gyew. Utherwise yew wuld've red the ansser to yer kweshtyun alredee.

Oh, you're good. In fact, you're too good at that.

 

[Woobie]

Army? The INGO Army? The vast majority of us do not have a salad suit or a badge. We are on our own.

People get shot in ready up/snapping in drills in gun schools, gun shows and gun shops. Remember Gunsite 2004? Two guys snapping in on each other after class at Gunsite. The pistol magically loaded itself and a man fell dead. "But it wasn't loaded" Ah, so it must have been OK then.

Ken Campbell, the current COO of Gunsite, tells about a Marine who was dry practicing with his unloaded M14. The round went the entire length of the hotel and it was Ken and the Marine who had to open each door to do a body check. All because the gun was unloaded, er, unlow-dead.

People get shot because the shooters think they are special snowflakes and do not have to follow the Four Rules and give endless rationalizations (I know, I have heard them) about why that gun was not loaded.

Everytime someone gets shot in a gun shop for example is another strike against us as a collective. It makes us look like dangerous simpletons that cannot be trusted with the guns we bray we have a right to.

Do you even read, bro? That was meant to be an insight. But I went on to explain how that did not apply outside that world. But I expect being intellectually honest wasn't first priority. No one is arguing with your examples, only to say that those firearms were not, in fact, low-dead.

I do appreciate where you are coming from, though, I do. My philosophy differs only in this: exceptions happen, so what are your protocols to eleminate the risk.