Is it EVER ok to treat a gun like its not loaded?

[jwh20]

Pretty much nailed it. All of my guns are not loaded. I treat each of them like they are loaded to avoid an AD/ND. I see no problem at all with handling a firearm while it is loaded, after all I am treating unloaded guns as if they were loaded so why would I treat my loaded guns any differently.

Of course that is exactly the point of the "treat all guns as if they are loaded" rule. If you always handle all guns with the same caution you will never have a mental lapse and have an "accident".

 

[HistoryGuy]

Because I didn't clear the weapon, I never cocked it, I kept my booger-hook off the bang-switch, and it was pointed in a safe direction. There was no chance of the gun going off. Now then, had I wanted to get a feel for the trigger or something, I would have cleared it.

 

[philbert001]

It does nothing to reinforce, the muzzle rule stands on its own because following it minimizes danger. If you really need a first rule that does nothing by itself, I'd suggest something more truthful like:
Rule #1 - Seriously, unloading the gun doesn't mean you should ignore these.

Once again, how is this any different than saying to treat them all as if they are loaded?
Rule 1 comes first, because it implies the inherent danger of NOT treating them all as if they were loaded. 2-4 just tell you HOW to treat them all as if they were loaded.

All those saying rule 1 is unnecessary, are just rewording the same rule!

Now let's quit pissing in Cheerios, and sing kum by ya!

 

[philbert001]

Because I didn't clear the weapon, I never cocked it, I kept my booger-hook off the bang-switch, and it was pointed in a safe direction. There was no chance of the gun going off. Now then, had I wanted to get a feel for the trigger or something, I would have cleared it.

I'm not saying you broke any of the rules. Just that not knowing for certain that it's empty CAN lead to complacency and ND! If you were to assume it's empty, and booger hook the bang switch, your following of the rules may keep anyone from getting hurt in the event of an ND, but I'm sure the hearing loss and hole in the floor would **** pops right off!

 

[k1500]

If the gun is disassembled, it is guaranteed to not be capable of firing.

 

[ATM]

Once again, how is this any different than saying to treat them all as if they are loaded?
Rule 1 comes first, because it implies the inherent danger of NOT treating them all as if they were loaded. 2-4 just tell you HOW to treat them all as if they were loaded.

All those saying rule 1 is unnecessary, are just rewording the same rule!

Now let's quit pissing in Cheerios, and sing kum by ya!

I'm not sure if you missed the point on purpose or have some other reason for ignoring it.

You are one of those defending an extra "rule" that prevents nothing. I could reword it a dozen different ways that still do nothing and it will be just as useless.

Adhering to 3 rules keeps things safe. We don't need "1 mantra to rule them all". People who treat firearms recklessly when they believe they aren't loaded will continue to do so no matter how many wise axioms you place in front of the rules, they simply know better and can't be convinced that those 3 rules always apply.

 

[Smokepole]

One way to look at rule #1 could be like, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." At first read it seems completely superfluous and unnecessary to the remaining part of the statement. Yet it does have a purpose, even though it is argued and debated ad nauseam by many that don't like it.

My feeling is that rule #1 sets the tone and reasoning for following with rules #2 thru #4. Especially for noobies. It reinforces the need. It also reinforces that we are all human and as such are fallible and capable of accidents, in this case Accidental/Unintentional Discharges.

But, how about we all agree that Rule #1 to could be changed to: "Personally clear any gun that you handle as soon as it touches your hands. If that more suits you fine. If not, that's fine too. Now you don't have to pick nits anymore. Because that's all that is going on here. You don't like it because it seems you feel it assumes that you are stupid even though you are not. Let's just agree that the experienced only need to worry about rules 2 thru 4 and call it a day. Because really it is an EXTREMELY stupid argument and I honestly don't understand the need you feel to engage in it every time you see or hear rule #1 cited. Your point is that it is a useless gesture, and maybe it is. But all of the time, breath and space that you waste/have wasted arguing the point, or lack of one - depending on the direction you come from - has been a much greater waste by several orders of magnitude. All because you insist that only you are right. It would have been very interesting watching you argue this point with Col. Cooper.

ATM, I agree with you on a great many things. Just not this one. Let's call it a day, Peace!

 

[Smokepole]

No, they are not.

The first is a blatant falsehood.

The second reflects a rational safety rule....but I would add "...until you have personally verified that it is not loaded"

I disagree, they are the same, just worded differently. The mandate from both is the same, treat any gun that your hold as if it is loaded. You simply added "assembled" and another word or two. To my way of thinking that is unnecessary wording because it isn't possible to handle an unassembled gun as though it is loaded as it is in pieces. You can see all of the parts and that it is incapable of firing. The wording "the gun is always loaded" simply employs a greater degree of grammatical economy. Some find that discipline a virtue that misses many of us here. Myself included. So I will end my engagement in this issue going forward and have some . Care to join me?

 

[bingley]

Now I'm not stupid. I know her dad would never place a gun on a table and walk out of the room without clearing it first. He's a safety nut when it comes to his guns.

Dude, that was a trap!!!

 

[Smokepole]

Dude, that was a trap!!!

Interesting observation.

 

[philbert001]

I'm not sure if you missed the point on purpose or have some other reason for ignoring it.

You are one of those defending an extra "rule" that prevents nothing. I could reword it a dozen different ways that still do nothing and it will be just as useless.

Adhering to 3 rules keeps things safe. We don't need "1 mantra to rule them all". People who treat firearms recklessly when they believe they aren't loaded will continue to do so no matter how many wise axioms you place in front of the rules, they simply know better and can't be convinced that those 3 rules always apply.

Perhaps rule 1 is the only one that's needed. 2-4 are for people who don't know how to treat a loaded gun.

 

[Smokepole]

Perhaps rule 1 is the only one that's needed. 2-4 are for people who don't know how to treat a loaded gun.

Maybe, but 3 and 4 probably wouldn't be that obvious for most newbies and I have seen quite a few people that are familiar with guns that violate rule #2 frequently. Like rule #1.

 

[JetGirl]

You are one of those defending an extra "rule" that prevents nothing. I could reword it a dozen different ways that still do nothing and it will be just as useless.

But, how about we all agree that Rule #1 to could be changed to: "Personally clear any gun that you handle as soon as it touches your hands.

For me, that rule is just a quicker way of saying or teaching "Verify the status for yourself before continuing to handle".
Especially when helping n00bs on the scene, "All guns are loaded" is a KISS way to instill "checking" before the handling that follows.
ATM, not everyone is as diligent as I know you are and not everyone is as safety conscious (I meet them every day). Regardless of where a round might end up, I don't want to be in the vicinity of an ND (due to bad handling) or an AD (due to machine parts failing) for a variety of reasons. And we all know...Sometimes people just eff up.

 

[ATM]

...You don't like it because it seems you feel it assumes that you are stupid even though you are not.

It assumes nothing and I ignore it anyway, so it's nothing as personal as that.

Let's just agree that the experienced only need to worry about rules 2 thru 4 and call it a day.

Sure, if you can explain why a noob would need something else to get them to follow rules 2 thru 4. "Rule" #1, despite it's good intentions, seems to accomplish little but to plant the suggestion in the mind that rules 2-4 are really just for loaded guns. It's like if a person can't pretend the gun is loaded, following rules 2-4 would be ridiculous.
Why not follow rules 2-4 even if it's unloaded? Or is it only safe gun handling when I also pretend it's loaded?

Because really it is an EXTREMELY stupid argument and I honestly don't understand the need you feel to engage in it every time you see or hear rule #1 cited.

I like arguing, it challenges us to think. Existing standards should always be subject to scrutiny and revision for the sake of improvement.

Your point is that it is a useless gesture, and maybe it is. But all of the time, breath and space that you waste/have wasted arguing the point, or lack of one - depending on the direction you come from - has been a much greater waste by several orders of magnitude.

I manage to get other things accomplished as well. This really doesn't consume much of my time.

All because you insist that only you are right.

I present an argument against what I believe has become something of a sacred cow. I don't claim to be the originator of this point so, again, I don't think it's as personal as that.

It would have been very interesting watching you argue this point with Col. Cooper.

Indeed, I'd have relished the opportunity to meet him.

Peace!

Perhaps rule 1 is the only one that's needed. 2-4 are for people who don't know how to treat a loaded gun.

As I understand it, that's exactly what was tried and it failed.

Then, rather than replacing the one failed "rule" with specific rules that work, they left it there and just added the specific safety rules to it. This is the mistake I'd like to see corrected.

If pros and noobs alike held themselves to just 3 rules of gun handling, who would get hurt? Loaded status would no longer be a subliminal qualifier or excuse to ignore them.

Clearing a gun would still be a good and safe practice, but it wouldn't have any bearing on whether the safe gun handling rules should still be followed.

Rule #1 was not and is still not the solution to unsafe gun handling, so why keep it around when it seems to detract from an improved standard?

 

[ATM]

For me, that rule is just a quicker way of saying or teaching "Verify the status for yourself before continuing to handle".
Especially when helping n00bs on the scene, "All guns are loaded" is a KISS way to instill "checking" before the handling that follows.
ATM, not everyone is as diligent as I know you are and not everyone is as safety conscious (I meet them every day). Regardless of where a round might end up, I don't want to be in the vicinity of an ND (due to bad handling) or an AD (due to machine parts failing) for a variety of reasons. And we all know...Sometimes people just eff up.

I know there's not always time to teach them to be diligent and safety conscious, so supervising the clearing of the gun they are about to handle is wise. But... let's not let them walk away thinking that clearing the gun alone in any way negates the importance of proper gun handling.

They might not ever shake that initial misconception and the mantra won't save them.

 

[philbert001]

I'd replace em all with, "Sweep me or mine, and I'll pistol whip you!". If the possibility of killing someone isn't enough to get people to practice safe firearm handling, then perhaps the threat of physical violence and bodily harm will do it!

People all have brain farts! Experienced shooters KNOW safe handling, and STILL ef up now and again. The four rules are clearly there, so that one way or another, they can hopefully get through to the lowest common denominator!

 

[ATM]

..."Sweep me or mine, and I'll pistol whip you!".

That does have a nice ring to it.

 

[JetGirl]

let's not let them walk away thinking that clearing the gun alone in any way negates the importance of proper gun handling.

Why would it?
It's not like anyone (at least I don't think) is saying "...and once that puppy is cleared, then feel free to booger hook it up on the bangswitch and wave that S.O.B. everywhere!"
What's really wrong with a shortened "mantra"(as you call it) of "verify the status while treating it as if it's loaded before you know for sure and then practice good safety etiquette regardless"? Isn't that what "All guns are loaded" is supposed to mean to us?
I don't get it. Is too much safety ever a bad thing regarding handling of firearms?

 

[ATM]

Why would it?
It's not like anyone (at least I don't think) is saying "...and once that puppy is cleared, then feel free to booger hook it up on the bangswitch and wave that S.O.B. everywhere!"
What's really wrong with a shortened "mantra"(as you call it) of "verify the status while treating it as if it's loaded before you know for sure and then practice good safety etiquette regardless"? Isn't that what "All guns are loaded" is supposed to mean to us?
I don't get it. Is too much safety ever a bad thing regarding handling of firearms?

Because at some level, any instruction to "treat it as if it's loaded" implies that there is a different way we can treat it if it's not. Knowing for sure shouldn't have any bearing, and most things related to etiquette get relegated to "when others are around, so as not to offend".

The 3 safety rules are not actually enhanced by the addition of a possibly dismissive qualifier IMO.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Perhaps rule 1 is the only one that's needed. 2-4 are for people who don't know how to treat a loaded gun.

ATM is correct. There was only one rule at API in the late '70s, "all guns are always loaded". Stupidity continued to ensue, the other three were then codified.*


*As related by Clinton A. "I painted the signs!" Smith, API ramrod at the time, to Kirk Freeman at a Thunder Ranch class, March 2009.