Is that Arabic for ATM's Kung Fu is tight?
I'm not a good judge of Kung Fu. But if it looks like Jet Li, or Jackie Chan, it's at least entertaining. David Carradine, eh, back in the seventies, maybe.
Is that Arabic for ATM's Kung Fu is tight?
You could approach it from a positive angle
...old dogs have an edge when it comes to forgetting things.
Yeah!
Oh, muh back.
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.
So say you deal in facts and data, yet none has been presented here (from either side). Then you stay far away from facts and data to say, "I do it because they do it."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.
Appleseed is the one I have personal experience with that doesn't bother with Rule #1 nonsense.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.
So you're saying Rule #1 is a logical fallacy, yet it's part of the sacred Four Rules so it has to be taught and each instructor has to modify it in such a way so that it makes sense and is helpful and not a detraction from the other rules?(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.
So you're saying Rule #1 is a logical fallacy, yet it's part of the sacred Four Rules so it has to be taught and each instructor has to modify it in such a way so that it makes sense and is helpful and not a detraction from the other rules?
If it's that much of a stumbling block for these cool kids (like Hunky McGlock) then why not leave it by the wayside?
Nono, how anyone carries is another thread entirely!
One thing my father always taught me, when handing a firearm to another make sure the chamber is in the open locked position. Same as in the military.
I can't find anyone willing or able to provide a reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 which follow it and are quite sufficient by themselves.
Why would the US military keep it? The reason I keep it, is stated in the opening post of the thread.first doesn't exist in many organizations' safety rules. What you personally would require to remove it from a system which you adopted does not rest upon me, my burden is not to make you change but to understand why you'd insist on keeping it without some supportive reasoning.
Red Herring. The 3 rules advocate assertion is that rule #1 promotes a lessening of the importance of the other 3 rules. This simply cannot be proven to be factual, hence, more conjecture.is also no fact based, evidence driven correlation between teaching that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS COLT PYTHONS and ND. Nothing
Surely you wouldn't use this same reasoning to (il)logically include it with otherwise sufficient safe gun handling rules?
Making the military connection reinforces the mainstream 4 rules approach to gun safety. Considering that the military has not changed their 4 rules system is yet another fact that change is not occurring on a mainstream level. This debunks the myth that 4 rule adherents are resisting "change"about all the other organizations and individuals who never even adopted it? And why even compare with what the military adopts?
4 rules works for me and all major branches of the US military.3 rules for that matter, so again, why adopt or retain the unnecessary 4th? Why not an unnecessary 5th or 6th?
To set a mindset that works for a great many people, including my example in the threads opening post.I see plenty of admissions that it's no less safe. So why the unnecessary 4th? Why?
plenty of evidence that 3 is sufficient and literally none even offered that the 4th is required. If that's not compelling to you, go ahead and dismiss it.
It would seem, to me, that every ND in which the excuse is the presumption that it wasn't loaded is an indictment of that thought process. Logically, a "3 rules" guy would never start off his ND story with that excuse, because he/she doesn't CARE whether it's loaded. No? It's only when we CARE whether the gun is loaded that we move on to the reasoning that I treated it differently BECAUSE I thought it was unloaded. That excuse says, "I know I broke one of the rules of gun handling, but I did it because I thought it was unloaded. Of COURSE I would never have pointed my gun at my child/spouse/friend if I'd known that it was LOADED..."
No? I'm a pretty simple guy, and often wrong, but that's what *I* get every time I hear/read that tired old attempt at an excuse.
Also, just an aside on the whole USMC thing, my time there made me doubt the logic behind LOTS of the things they do. That neither proves nor disproves anything about this argument, but in my world the idea that something must be right because that's the way the USMC does it is pretty amusing and makes me chuckle. As a young recruit, I sat around a white barrel at Camp Pendleton and repeatedly pulled the trigger on a rifle that was pointed more or less squarely at another recruit on the other side of the barrel. So that MUST be a good idea. One of you newer Marines, do they still do that?
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?
The language you use indicates that this is your opinion. Please meditate on the ubiquity and olfactory unpleasantness of the common opinion.
As far as more rules, some organizations are already there:
NSSF, TEN rules Firearms Safety | 10 Rules of Safe Gun Handling
Smith and Wesson, FIVE rules Handgun Safety Rules - Smith & Wesson
I've seen as many as twelve
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.
For me the original post wasn't so much a confirmation of Rule #1, but a confirmation that people make mistakes, we should check and plan for this, and guns should be treated the same way always.
For me the original post wasn't so much a confirmation of Rule #1, but a confirmation that people make mistakes, we should check and plan for this, and guns should be treated the same way always.
Well said Spock...But you know logic has no place on a four rules thread.....
I am still dealing with the shame that I occasionally spin a cowboy revolver while watching Hell on Wheels........
I was spinning one last night.............It is a fake though so does that matter in here....?????
Very interesting to follow the progression of it. Who doesn't enjoy a spirited discussion?