Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[SubicWarrior1988]

We're now at 32 pages and one has shown a clear, logical reason that Rule #1 is needed in addition to Rules 2-4.

Telling, don't you think?

oops, a freudian slip perhaps?

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

You tell me. Again, if they switch, why will you follow? (you stated you would) Because they saw their error and you agree, or because you want to be on the same page.

While you relegate yourself to hypotheticals and conjecture, I'm dealing with facts and data.

The United States Marine Corps teaches the 4 rules, along with other branches of the US military. I will stay in alignment with the Marine Corps, if it's good enough for Chesty Puller, it's good enough for me. Semper Fidelis.

So I say again, Who can provide a list of credible firearm training entities that have dropped the 4 rules and migrated to the NRA 3 rule system?

Still waiting.

 

[ATM]

"This is the way we've always done it" is hardly the best reason for doing just about anything. The question as to whether any particular new idea is actually better is absolutely necessary, but neither popularity nor longevity can really answer the question of "better".

To get to "better", I think you have to start with "what is the primary cause of NDs today?" Seems that "I thought it wasn't loaded" is mentioned in nearly every tragic ND story I read. What would happen if you taught a method that said it doesn't matter in the LEAST whether the gun is loaded, you still ALWAYS follow these rules. ALWAYS.

But I thought it was... NO. I don't give a flying **** whether you thought it was loaded or not, just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I couldn't help but notice that this post has also been avoided. You'd think, as blasphemous as it is, it would have been refuted soundly with logic and reason.

Those willing to think about this subject and how it impacts others beyond themselves are already doing so. Minds are opening.

Those hesitant to break with tradition until it becomes more popular or trendy to do so will follow whatever their favored segment of the herd adopts.

Those clinging to the way it's always been for no other reason that's how they were told will likely continue to cling to it all the way to the grave.

I think we've done some good here and met with relatively zero refutation. Resistance, uncertainty and knotted panties, sure, but no reasoned counter-arguments amounting to a defense.

The points and questions which were most blatantly avoided provided some of the most valuable feedback in this thread. I will shore up these stronger points and present them in a new thread soon.

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

 

[jamil]

I've pretty much argued for an agnostic outlook on this subject, and here's why. I just don't see why we're arguing about this so vigorously, other than we're a bunch of people who just like to argue about stuff. And I don't mind arguing about stuff. If I'm going to be interested in this discussion, it's going to be more about the arguments than the outcome, because I really don't care much which rules you teach. I care more that some of you guys are trying to push unproven views on everyone. I see change like this. It is foolish to change just for the sake of change. It is also foolish to avoid change for the fear of change. So this change, to evict teaching rule #1 for everyone forever, there needs to be a valid reason, a valid argument to change it. I see only two valid arguments to get us there.

Argument 1: Rule #1 is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

Argument 2: Rule #1 is harmful.

No one has really made a convincing case for either.

So for the two valid arguments, let's start with argument #1. It's probably easier to argue the first part, that it is unnecessary. However, it's more difficult to argue it's unhelpful. First "unhelpful" is very subjective. Second, to say it's unhelpful, you'd need to establish that it largely doesn't help people. That's harder to establish as many people, even in this thread, testify that they do find it helpful.

Argument #2 is harder. You need empirical evidence to really make a statement as strong as that. The harm done by unsafe actions with firearms is people/stuff getting shot that didn't need shot. No one has produced any evidence that unintended discharges are more likely for people who've learned rule #1.

I do believe it's harmful, hence my railing against it. It is not harmful to everyone, but likely many. Many is enough. A few would be enough. How about one? Yeah, the individual matters.

Well, now there's argument #2, right off the bat. I've discussed how you should go about making that argument.

And, it doesn't keep anyone safe, the steps which follow do. There are many ways to prove it, many evidences which are not the data you suggest. If these aren't satisfactory for you, I'm not terribly worried. If you're interested in researching numbers and sorting out all the variables which would impact those numbers, shoring them up against attempted reproof from the faithful adherents, knock yourself out.

There's argument #1. But you really haven't made the case for that. Yes. There are ways to prove it, which you haven't done. And it's okay with me if you wish to believe whatever you want based merely on intuition, or a hunch, or even an experienced guess. But those don't make the case either. You having the reputation you have, and the experience you have, I would certainly defer to your experience here. However, if your belief is so strong that you're willing to rail against it so aggressively, I would rather that you quantify your experience in a repeatable way, such that we can test it. You need more than just intuition, or hunch, even if they are based on your years of experience. Perhaps, rather than crusading to make everyone conform to your way of thinking, your learned opinion would be better suited for suggesting that people consider the rule you prefer.

Your squeals haven't been the most delightful of the bunch, but better than average for one who claims to not even care.

This isn't an argument. But it does seem to be an attempt at a compliment. So I'll take it.

I'm writing more for the readers than the respondents. It is generally how I accomplish things. Anyone who gets caught up in responding only to me and forgets about the larger group of readers will tend to lose ground in the larger battle.

Don't we all do that?

I do think it's both unnecessary and harmful.

Since I haven't yet convinced you, I appreciate that you and some others have taken more of a 'so what?' stance rather than a defensive stance. I really wish the defensive few would actually point out errors or problems with what I say, make a logical defense for teaching people that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED rather than taking refutation of that 'rule' as a personal slight, selectively quoting their responses while evading the real gist of the discussion.

I don't care what they've adopted so long as they handle guns safely, but there are better and worse ways to instruct the next generation and that's worth discussing. I'm no fan of rote regurgitation for its own sake. Good and reasonable ideas can withstand quite a bit of directed scrutiny.

I've explained why I say, "so what?" so I don't need to rehash that.

I'm not going to vigorously defend rule #1. Cooper is not a god. I am not a worshiper. I will just say I find those rules helpful. I find no valid reason to completely excommunicate them. But I will also say I would likely have found the rules you advocate helpful as well. There is more than one road to Rome. I don't think we need to destroy one of them unless you can successfully make one of the two arguments.

 

[BugI02]

"This is the way we've always done it" is hardly the best reason for doing just about anything. The question as to whether any particular new idea is actually better is absolutely necessary, but neither popularity nor longevity can really answer the question of "better".

To get to "better", I think you have to start with "what is the primary cause of NDs today?" Seems that "I thought it wasn't loaded" is mentioned in nearly every tragic ND story I read. What would happen if you taught a method that said it doesn't matter in the LEAST whether the gun is loaded, you still ALWAYS follow these rules. ALWAYS.

What would happen if you taught a method wherein the first rule (of four) required you to NEVER assume any weapon that had been, however briefly, out of your control was NOT LOADED. And just as in the system you advocate, the other three rules (muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, target discipline) are also being followed rigorously at the same time. You wind up in exactly the same place, where " I didn't know it was loaded " is simply an excuse for carelessness/negligence.

But I thought it was... NO. I don't give a flying **** whether you thought it was loaded or not, just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME.

iCP, I've only come back to your post because ATM thinks it isn't being given enough attention (#323)

Allowing four rules adherents the same stipulation as in your close " ... just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME." I do not see a case being made that 3 is better than 4, only that if everyone followed all the rules all the time human-damaging NDs would be a thing of the past

So the argument turns on personal preference rather than any evidence of the superiority of one over the other. Carry on (and we will, too)

 

[ATM]

What would happen if you taught a method wherein the first rule (of four) required you to NEVER assume any weapon that had been, however briefly, out of your control was NOT LOADED. And just as in the system you advocate, the other three rules(muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, target discipline) are also being followed rigorously at the same time. You wind up in exactly the same place, where " I didn't know it was loaded " is simply an excuse for carelessness/negligence.

iCP, I've only come back to your post because ATM thinks it isn't being given enough attention (#323)

Allowing four rules adherents the same stipulation as in your close " ... just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME." I do not see a case being made that 3 is better than 4, only that if everyone followed all the rules all the time human-damaging NDs would be a thing of the past

So the argument turns on personal preference rather than any evidence of the superiority of one over the other. Carry on (and we will, too)

It looks as if you are attempting to prove jamil's Argument 1: Rule #1 is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

If I agree with you that adding the 4th rule to 3 doesn't change the outcome, do you have any follow-up support for actually adding the unnecessary and unhelpful 4th to the 3 which would sufficiently stand without it?

 

[BugI02]

First time posting from phone so plz bear with me

You seem to have the order of operations reversed. You are arguing in favor of subtracting a rule from the four that have been happily promoting firearm safety for generations. Is not it incumbent on you to prove your deletion from a working system still provides the same ( or better ) outcome?

And, as in your close, if you agree with me that keeping the original four rules doesnt change the outcome, why would I need follow-up support in light of that agreement. Follow ALL the rules of whatever system you prefer ALL the time and life will be golden

 

[Bill of Rights]

...

So the argument turns on personal preference rather than any evidence of the superiority of one over the other. Carry on (and we will, too)

Nono, how anyone carries is another thread entirely!

 

[crispy]

(Original) Rule #1 doesn't fit the definition of a "Rule".

As a "statement" or "mindset", it is untrue.

There is a reason almost every teaching organization in the world has modified it.

[video=youtube;C8S4WN82WO4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8S4WN82WO4[/video]

 

[ATM]

First time posting from phone so plz bear with me

You seem to have the order of operations reversed. You are arguing in favor of subtracting a rule from the four that have been happily promoting firearm safety for generations. Is not it incumbent on you to prove your deletion from a working system still provides the same ( or better ) outcome?

No, I already subtracted it many years ago when I realized it was unnecessary and unhelpful. I've recently been considering in greater depth the harm it may do, but that's argument #2 so I'll save that for later.

I can tell you personally, through at least several hundred students ranging in experience from zero to distinguished riflemen and firearms instructors far more accomplished than I, not a single issue with its omission. Not one. You see, the part of the system that is necessary, helpful and instructive is still there.

I also never hear any suggestion that its omission from the safe gun handling rules of that huge firearm training organization, the NRA, has any detrimental or even mildly negative effect. Again, because the important components are still right there.

I'm giving you the opportunity to show me what safe gun handling component we're robbing all these students of by not teaching ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. If it is necessary or helpful to handle guns safely, I really want to know how. Then I can weigh that against the damage I believe it does and come to my own conclusion if it's worth it to teach.

And, as in your close, if you agree with me that keeping the original four rules doesnt change the outcome, why would I need follow-up support in light of that agreement. Follow ALL the rules of whatever system you prefer ALL the time and life will be golden

I believe that in some cases "traditional rule#1" can negatively impact the outcome, but that is argument #2 and I'd rather tackle this easy one first. So at least for now, my request for any follow-up support to add an unnecessary and unhelpful 4th rule to 3 which are sufficient is a matter of precision and efficiency. I mean, if we add a 4th without good reason, why not a 5th? Why not add everyone's favorite good gun idea to the mix?

My answer: because they would dilute and detract from that which is critical by mixing in that which is secondary or worse, unrelated to safe gun handling at all.

So, if you have any reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 rules we agree are sufficient for safe gun handling, I really do want to hear it.

 

[ATM]

Rule #1 doesn't fit the definition of a "Rule".

As a "statement" or "mindset", it is untrue.

There is a reason almost every teaching organization in the world has modified it.

...or never adopted it.

 

[oldpink]

Allahu akbar!
Allahu akbar!

 

[ATM]

Allahu akbar!
Allahu akbar!

Is that Arabic for ATM's Kung Fu is tight?

 

[churchmouse]

Just checking in to see if my mindset has been changed yet.....

 

[ATM]

Just checking in to see if my mindset has been changed yet.....

You might take a while.

Do let us know.

 

[churchmouse]

You might take a while.

Do let us know.

Old dog new tricks..............

 

[ATM]

Old dog new tricks..............

You could approach it from a positive angle

...old dogs have an edge when it comes to forgetting things.



Yeah!



Oh, muh back.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

No, I already subtracted it many years ago when I realized it was unnecessary and unhelpful. I've recently been considering in greater depth the harm it may do, but that's argument #2 so I'll save that for later.

I can tell you personally, through at least several hundred students ranging in experience from zero to distinguished riflemen and firearms instructors far more accomplished than I, not a single issue with its omission. Not one. You see, the part of the system that is necessary, helpful and instructive is still there.

I also never hear any suggestion that its omission from the safe gun handling rules of that huge firearm training organization, the NRA, has any detrimental or even mildly negative effect. Again, because the important components are still right there.

I'm giving you the opportunity to show me what safe gun handling component we're robbing all these students of by not teaching ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. If it is necessary or helpful to handle guns safely, I really want to know how. Then I can weigh that against the damage I believe it does and come to my own conclusion if it's worth it to teach.



I believe that in some cases "traditional rule#1" can negatively impact the outcome, but that is argument #2 and I'd rather tackle this easy one first. So at least for now, my request for any follow-up support to add an unnecessary and unhelpful 4th rule to 3 which are sufficient is a matter of precision and efficiency. I mean, if we add a 4th without good reason, why not a 5th? Why not add everyone's favorite good gun idea to the mix?

My answer: because they would dilute and detract from that which is critical by mixing in that which is secondary or worse, unrelated to safe gun handling at all.

So, if you have any reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 rules we agree are sufficient for safe gun handling, I really do want to hear it.

The burden of proof rests upon the 3 rule advocates to provide a compelling argument to remove the 1st rule. That requires empirical evidence, peer reviewed data, much more than the easily refuted anecdotal evidence that has been presented.

To summarize,

There is no fact based, evidence driven correlation between Rule #1 and ND. Nothing

Not one single entity has been shown to have dropped the 4 rules in favor of the NRA method. Not the Marine Corps, Not the Army, Not the Navy, no one, (as of yet, anyone willing to provide a single credible entity?)

Not one single example has been provided of a ND when a person is using the 4 rules, ever.

There is not one single shred of fact based, empirical evidence that the NRA 3 rule method is safer than the traditional 4 rules of gun safety.


There simply is no compelling evidence, just anecdotal conjecture which is easily dismissed.

 

[jamil]

(Original) Rule #1 doesn't fit the definition of a "Rule".

This isn't a valid argument because the truth value of the argument doesn't affect the outcome. Whether it is stated with a concrete or abstract action or prohibition doesn't affect its suitability for teaching gun safety. I've never encountered anyone who doesn't understand the concept and implied meaning. I've never encountered anyone who takes it literally. People get what you mean when you say it.

If you want to argue that because it is abstract, it is unhelpful because it requires people to take the necessary step of inferring the concrete meaning and is therefore less clear. You can argue that, because the truth value of that argument does affect the outcome. But there are several counterarguments against the truthfulness of that argument.

As a "statement" or "mindset", it is untrue.

This is at least arguable. At least the truth value of this statement does affect the outcome. But you've not proven the truthfulness. You can say its untrue only if you take the statement of rule #1 most literally. It is obvious to most people that it is not literal. I don't know anyone who takes it literally except when taken up by people who don't like it, as a case against it.

There is a reason almost every teaching organization in the world has modified it.

Now we're back to not an argument. The truth value of this statement doesn't affect the outcome. It doesn't matter if people restate the original wording with different language. It still means the same thing. Do you want to insist that your preferred rules become invalid if people can rephrase them differently while keeping the same meaning?

It doesn't matter if people word it differently, or include the concrete implied action or prohibition. I can say the first rule in personal interactions is, "evil people suck". The implied prohibition is, don't be evil. Different people will restate that using different language that may be more or less abstract, but essentially they will say the same thing. No one would restate that to say "be evil".

The fact that people may restate rule #1 in different more or less abstract language doesn't affect the helpfulness, or usefulness, or harmfulness of the statement. I think you can argue that changing the wording of the statement to its concrete meaning is more clear. But using what you said isn't a valid argument against the rule itself.

 

[jamil]

The burden of proof rests upon the 3 rule advocates to provide a compelling argument to remove the 1st rule. That requires empirical evidence, peer reviewed data, much more than the easily refuted anecdotal evidence that has been presented.

To summarize,

There is no fact based, evidence driven correlation between Rule #1 and ND. Nothing

Not one single entity has been shown to have dropped the 4 rules in favor of the NRA method. Not the Marine Corps, Not the Army, Not the Navy, no one, (as of yet, anyone willing to provide a single credible entity?)

Not one single example has been provided of a ND when a person is using the 4 rules, ever.

There is not one single shred of fact based, empirical evidence that the NRA 3 rule method is safer than the traditional 4 rules of gun safety.


There simply is no compelling evidence, just anecdotal conjecture which is easily dismissed.

I don't know if I'd say that as formally. It's find to attack their arguments with formality, but in the end, it's still not rocket surgery. It'd be nice to have peer reviewed studies and all, but is probably overkill.

The naysayers want to completely eliminate all teaching of that rule. I say, teach what you want as long as what you teach is useful, helpful, and harmless. If they believe that teaching the traditional rules are useless or unhelpful, or are harmful, then they shouldn't teach them. But, to bluster on and ridicule the traditionalists as they are, they need to bring more to the discussion than just claims. I'm not asking for peer reviewed studies, though that would be helpful. But at least bring some concrete, real-life empirical evidence that shows clearly that the two valid arguments are true, before bringing all this bluster.