Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[churchmouse]

Old men...We KNOW we are right..End of discussion...

Close the thread....drops mic

 

[Thor]

drops the mic and....MORE FEEDBACK!!!

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

I'm glad you posted it. Very interesting to follow the progression of it. Who doesn't enjoy a spirited discussion?

Thanks, your post is appreciated.

 

[ATM]

The Thread originated with a reason that rule #1 is important. Anecdotal evidence, but a reason never the less. Individuals count, right?

What I've asked for repeatedly is a reason it belongs with the other 3 safe gun handling rules. I never claimed that checking a gun's loaded status wasn't important, I've asked what that has to do with keeping it pointed in a safe direction with finger off the trigger until ready to shoot - safe gun handling. I'll also ask what checking to see if it's loaded has to do with assuming it always is?

If I want it unloaded, I can check that it is unloaded. If I want it loaded, I can check that it is loaded. But why would either condition be tied to handling it safely?

If ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED reminds you to check the loaded status, fine and good, but that is not a universal safe gun handling requirement, it is simply knowing how the action operates and deciding if you want it loaded or unloaded for what you're preparing to do with it.

Why would the US military keep it? The reason I keep it, is stated in the opening post of the thread.

I don't know why or when the military adopted it. If you know, please tell me their reasoning. If you don't know their reasons, why do you assume they must be good or sensible reasons?

I can tell you that I was taught very little about general firearms or general safe gun handling in the Army. I vaguely remember some strict range procedural rules and dry firing into a barrel announcing that I had "no brass, no ammo" at the end of the range trip, but I don't recall ever being told that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED at any time. Their primary method of ensuring safety seemed to be not allowing us to have ammo except at the firing range and rarely having access to our assigned rifle which lived in the armory.

I learned more in my first day at an Appleseed than the Army ever taught me. Their general firearms instruction was weak to non-existent. I received zero pistol instruction during my enlistment.

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.

Many truths cannot be proven to be factual. The KISS principle cannot be proven to be factual, yet it is considered to be common sense by many.
If you prefer complex to simple, keep adding unnecessary steps. If you prefer abstract to tangible, throw more metaphors in with the actionable and preventative steps. If you have a reason (rather than simply the desire) to do so, that's what I'd like to understand and discuss.

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.

I'm fairly certain the military branches have developed, refined, adopted, discarded and adapted it's practices and instructional methods countless times in every area imaginable through the years. Please support your claim regarding the 4 rules system.

This debunks the myth that 4 rule adherents are resisting "change"

To whom? Who would accept that as a debunking of adherents resisting change? I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of the resistance I've encountered here. "It's mainstream!" lacks a bit in that regard.

4 rules works for me and all major branches of the US military.

I'll await your support for the military claim (even though I'm still not sure that they'd be your most stellar choice of standard bearer for mainstream).

Even so, of course 4 works for you. Those 4, as with the 3, contain 2 essential ingredients which universally constitute safe gun handling (and a third, lesser but helpful rule in either set we've been discussing). They work.

But the question remains, why the unnecessary 4th? What part of safe gun handling does it provide? What would be lacking in its absence? What are the training and instructional organizations that never adopted a 4th depriving their students of?

To set a mindset that works for a great many people, including my example in the threads opening post.

I'm not interested in a thing that only works for a great many people, I already have something that will work for everyone. I don't want to add any stumbling blocks for anyone if I don't need to. I want to keep it simple and tangible if possible, the most concise and effective set of steps to ensuring safe gun handling.

Rest assured, I will also teach them how to load, unload, and check the status of a gun, but that will be after rather than part of the initial safety briefing and safe gun handling rules.

There has been a wealth of evidence provided to support the 1st rule, whether you accept it or not is solely up to you.

Would you be willing to summarize any support mentioned here for retaining or adding ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to safe gun handling rules?

I'd feel silly continuing to ask for it if I simply missed it in this thread. Quotes would be splendid.

It would be interesting to have some data on ND and the safety systems "practiced" by the offending party. I would venture to say that a great many ND are committed by NRA trained gun owners, (you do train over one MILLION people per year, it's just a matter of statistics)

I can only instruct to the best of my ability, give people the best tools I have to borrow from. I can't make people practice after they leave.
If you collect those numbers, please do post them up for another discussion.

Since there is no way, as of yet, to look at the data then we have to work with conjecture, opinion and anecdotal experience, one simply cannot say that the 1st rule of safety is not effective unless they concede that it's just opinion.

I will not concede. The traditional #1 is certainly not effective for everyone. That it may be of some positive value to you and even several others does not make it universal nor does it deserve a sacred place among safe gun handling rules. It is not like the others ...and that's a fact.

Enjoying the discourse, hope to cross paths again soon.

 

[ATM]

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.

It is my opinion, which is why I chose the language I did.
It was not stated as a fact so I'm not sure why you would find it unpleasant at all. Please explain.
It was also merely an aside which I dismissed from the present course of conversation, made no attempt to develop as a premise, nor did I attempt to use it as support for that which followed.

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

Pointing out more poor practices will get no argument from me. I say expose them all and question their reasoning.
My proposal is to keep all the expansions and general but non-universal good ideas in other lists apart from the critical and necessary steps of safe gun handling

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.

Hey, wait. Back up. You skipped this part again. If you have any reason I really do still want to hear it.

 

[ATM]

<Continuation, but seemed to be sub-topical so I separated.>

From the NRA. Rule three looks suspiciously like the actions Cooper's rule one would engender. And no mention of knowing your target and what's beyond it? Looks like you could use a rule four after all

Really? You think unloading a gun that won't be in use is the same as ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED?
Knowing your target and what's beyond is technically just an expansion of comprehending what a safe direction entails from the other rule.
Neither of those would I consider as important as the other 2, but I don't rail against them, either. Even if unnecessary, they seem at least helpful and I can't imagine either causing undue harm.

I'd actually be fine focusing on the 2 but that proposal would absolutely blow people's minds and invoke a wrath of angst I'm not prepared to haul down on myself just yet. Baby steps.

So, no, I'm not seeing any need for a rule 4.

From Appleseed. Again no mention of knowing your target and what's beyond it. I think I begin to understand the problem. Your version of the four rules is specific to training at a range. It is a proper subset of the four rules aimed at a specific, limited set of circumstances. Kind of a four rules with training wheels

There's no problem and I haven't advocated for those 4 Appleseed rules because they're not universal. Appleseed events rely on those same two universal safe gun handling rules to ensure safety, but add an event procedural rule and one of those general good suggestions to look out for one another to their event rules.
It would be absurd to suggest that after they leave the event they'll need to find someone to tell them to load. However, if they are determined to handle guns safely after the event, we did give them every tool required to do so.

I would remind you that Cooper's four rules were directed at, and he taught, fighting pistol

So? He was trying to refine a universal set of safe gun handling rules. He should have kept refining. I haven't proposed anything range specific, only that which would be considered universal, effective and concise safe gun handling which could be practiced, communicated and transferred easily regardless of experience level.

I just don't see the rule regime you advocate as being targeted at eliminating NDs, It seems to be more aimed at making sure NDs are less lethal. If you think that's the way to go, you are entitled to your opinion

I'm not sure how you concluded this. Both are absolutely the way to go, they are not at all mutually exclusive goals. Please explain.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

ATM,

First off, you'll notice that I've directed a majority of my questioning to you and there's a reason. Thanks up front for never becoming emotional or irrational during this dialogue, I've always felt like I could question your beliefs and you wouldn't take it personal and stay on topic, which you have. I've truly enjoyed the interaction and i've learned new information that I did not know before hand.

I'll keep this short to avoid imminent redundancy:

Rule #1 prompted me to safety check a loaded pistol that I bought in a parking lot recently, this mindset allowed me to safely function check the pistol, as described in the origin of this thread.

Had the seller practiced rule#1, he would have not handed a loaded pistol to a complete complete stranger. The other 3 rules would not have helped him had he encountered someone that would shoot him with his own pistol and rob him.


What WOULD be interesting is if anyone reading this thread has changed their position on the topic, IE, a traditional 4 rules person who now is converted to the NRA 3 rule standard, Or vice versa. (Perhaps an INGO member, that has been silent thus far, could chime in and share their thoughts on the subject)

That being said, I'd like to take one of your classes as there is always something to learn and you have much you can teach. I'll let you have the final word on the thread, I've given as much time as I can to internet debate for a while. Thanks again, hope to see you soon!

 

[foszoe]

ATM,

First off, you'll notice that I've directed a majority of my questioning to you and there's a reason. Thanks up front for never becoming emotional or irrational during this dialogue, I've always felt like I could question your beliefs and you wouldn't take it personal and stay on topic, which you have. I've truly enjoyed the interaction and i've learned new information that I did not know before hand.

I'll keep this short to avoid imminent redundancy:

Rule #1 prompted me to safety check a loaded pistol that I bought in a parking lot recently, this mindset allowed me to safely function check the pistol, as described in the origin of this thread.

Had the seller practiced rule#1, he would have not handed a loaded pistol to a complete complete stranger. The other 3 rules would not have helped him had he encountered someone that would shoot him with his own pistol and rob him.


What WOULD be interesting is if anyone reading this thread has changed their position on the topic, IE, a traditional 4 rules person who now is converted to the NRA 3 rule standard, Or vice versa. (Perhaps an INGO member, that has been silent thus far, could chime in and share their thoughts on the subject)

That being said, I'd like to take one of your classes as there is always something to learn and you have much you can teach. I'll let you have the final word on the thread, I've given as much time as I can to internet debate for a while. Thanks again, hope to see you soon!

I've converted sorta....

I see rule 1 as a consequence of the other 3 now,which doesnt make it a rule but a result.

However I will still repeat the mantra to treat every gun as if it is loaded because I too old to change.

Its like hammers vs strikers , double action vs single, external safety vs internal.

I am becoming my Grandpa

I have shot DA, external safety, hammer more years than I have left to live so I aint gonna change.

I also end the Lord's Prayer with "the evil one"

 

[ATM]

...I've truly enjoyed the interaction and i've learned new information that I did not know before hand...

...Thanks again, hope to see you soon!

Likewise, thank you.

 

[ATM]

I've converted sorta....

I see rule 1 as a consequence of the other 3 now,which doesnt make it a rule but a result.

However I will still repeat the mantra to treat every gun as if it is loaded because I too old to change.

Its like hammers vs strikers , double action vs single, external safety vs internal.

I am becoming my Grandpa

I have shot DA, external safety, hammer more years than I have left to live so I aint gonna change.

I also end the Lord's Prayer with "the evil one"

Thanks for sharing.

I'm curious for your opinion, as one who is somewhere in-between the 'extremes' of this topic, regarding your comment, "...I will still repeat the mantra to treat every gun as if it is loaded..."

Do you feel that "treat(ing) every gun as if it is loaded" is a better concept than "handling every gun safely"?

I realize that it may forever resonate in your own mind the former way due to years of repetition, but what I'm asking is, if you were teaching another to handle guns safely, and these two concepts weren't already fairly synonymous for them, would you find the latter version lacking in any way to the overall gun handling mindset you'd like to instill in them?

I'd appreciate your perspective, and it was good to finally meet you and learn the correct pronunciation of your username (though it will always resonate in my own mind somewhat differently).

Thanks!

 

[iChokePeople]

I suppose you could say I've been converted. I've always heard versions of the 4, and never put much thought into it. Having now taken a little time to think about it more or less objectively, for me, I don't like most versions of the always loaded "rule". I'm not as passionate as ATM about it, but am moving in that direction the more I read and think and try to apply logic to the question, rather than habit and dogma.

 

[foszoe]

Thanks for sharing.

I'm curious for your opinion, as one who is somewhere in-between the 'extremes' of this topic, regarding your comment, "...I will still repeat the mantra to treat every gun as if it is loaded..."

Do you feel that "treat(ing) every gun as if it is loaded" is a better concept than "handling every gun safely"?

I realize that it may forever resonate in your own mind the former way due to years of repetition, but what I'm asking is, if you were teaching another to handle guns safely, and these two concepts weren't already fairly synonymous for them, would you find the latter version lacking in any way to the overall gun handling mindset you'd like to instill in them?

I'd appreciate your perspective, and it was good to finally meet you and learn the correct pronunciation of your username (though it will always resonate in my own mind somewhat differently).

Thanks!

Been here awhile and just learned I can stretch the editing window. Maybe now I won't get so ticked off when responding more indepth!



I usually try to avoid any extremes

Premises of the 2 sides:

4 Rules

1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded
2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target with intent to fire
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

3 Rules

1. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target with intent to fire
3. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

I think we can agree that the above is a valid representation of the 2 extremes? I think we would also agree that a person who strictly follows either set is practicing safe gun handling.

If a person follows the 3 Rules, then that person is ABSOLUTELY practicing safe gun handling.

My further premise is: A person following the 3 Rules in all SOLITARY situations will ALWAYS be safe.

Does this hold true in a group?

ONLY if each INDIVIDUAL is practicing the 3 rules.

The unknown is how can I be certain everyone else is?

I believe the answer to that is no.

No matter how vigorously I follow the 3 rules, if I am at a range or in a gunstore, or buying a used firearm in a parking lot, when a muzzle sweeps me, I will treat that gun as if it is loaded and I don't care how many assurances I receive that it isn't. When handed a firearm that has been checked right in front of me, I will still check it myself. If someone intentionally points a gun at me I will treat it as if it were loaded.

So, when I teaching someone new to firearms, I will continue to drill that in their head.

I teach my "students" to flip the cylinder all the way out, rotate the cylinder and count the holes with a finger, or stick a finger in the mag well, chamber and also visually check when given a pistol. I also tell them that I don't care how much they trust me, once I have demonstrated clear and hand them the weapon that they are to do the same.

I think students in general are too trusting of instructors. It ingrained in us as children.

Follwoing "Rule 1" breaks that barrier.

So to answer your very first question. In a group, treating every gun as if it were loaded is part of gun safety not separate from it for me.

When loading a weapon, I verbally say to myself, "My weapon is now loaded".
I don't treat any of my pistols as unloaded until the slide is off and the barrel is removed.

When I dry fire, I step outside for the first trigger pull even when I know I have inserted the laser cartridge in the chamber.

If I place the gun down and go to the bathroom and come back I will step outside and pull the trigger again.

So I may know they weapon is loaded but I am still treating it as if it were loaded.

Why would I do such a thing if I am following Rule 2/1? Because I am not really willing to destroy my targets they cost money.

I would also give the same advice to others.

It comes with being paranoid.

So whether i include it as a rule or accept that it is a functional equivalent conclusion to 3 rules.

In my line of work, we have to use 3 part communication. If we don't people can be seriously injured or die. If we are interrupted, we have to back up the chain of communication and do it again.

So when I encounter any gun, in my direct possession or otherwise, I still treat it as if it were loaded upon initial contact. It gives me an initial mindset condition from which to proceed and it is for this reason that I would still tell my "students" to treat every gun as if it were loaded".

This answer was typed piecemeal so if anything is unclear, ask away.

 

[crispy]

I think we can agree that the above is a valid representation of the 2 extremes? I think we would also agree that a person who strictly follows either set is practicing safe gun handling.

Nope.

You've already modified the four rules from the MORE extreme version.

Thus the problem with this thread.

People can't even decide which version of the four rules to argue...

 

[jamil]

Nope.

You've already modified the four rules from the MORE extreme version.

Thus the problem with this thread.

People can't even decide which version of the four rules to argue...

Reword that to shave off a few dozen characters and it could be the average twitter argument.

 

[churchmouse]

Am I converted yet...???

I am so confused.

 

[308jake]

Am I converted yet...???

I am so confused.

I think we did solve global warming. So that's a positive.

 

[phidelt208]

So other than, missed placed egos. Is there any reason Not to "treat all guns as they are loaded".
I see so many positive aspects and ways this can keep people safe, why wouldn't we want to.

 

[Snapdragon]

So, has anyone else had the pleasure of having a loaded weapon handed to them during a sale, either private party or at a gun store?

Yes

 

[ATM]

So other than, missed placed egos. Is there any reason Not to "treat all guns as they are loaded".
I see so many positive aspects and ways this can keep people safe, why wouldn't we want to.

Sure. 'as they are loaded' is more complicated and less efficient than the single word 'safely' (all the more so if you add the word 'if' between 'as' and 'they').

I can't think of any reason not to "treat all guns safely", but I don't think I'd ever add that to an instructive list of safe gun handling rules, either - it's rather implied by the list.

Loading and unloading are important, but not relative to whether one decides to handle a gun safely.

 

[MTC]

What I've asked for repeatedly is a reason it belongs with the other 3 safe gun handling rules. I never claimed that checking a gun's loaded status wasn't important, I've asked what that has to do with keeping it pointed in a safe direction with finger off the trigger until ready to shoot - safe gun handling. I'll also ask what checking to see if it's loaded has to do with assuming it always is?

As far as I'm concerned, you just answered your own question. I will explain this as fully and completely as I can when we meet again.

If I want it unloaded, I can check that it is unloaded. If I want it loaded, I can check that it is loaded. But why would either condition be tied to handling it safely?

Not a matter of exclusion but of inclusion. Replace "can" with "will" in the preceeding, and again, I will explain this fully when we meet again.

ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED reminds you to check the loaded status, fine and good, but that is not a universal safe gun handling requirement [WTF? It most certainly is!], it is simply knowing how the action operates and deciding if you want it loaded or unloaded for what you're preparing to do with it.

Bolded for emphasis and again, I will explain this fully next time we meet.

I have no typing skill. I can convey information at least 100 times faster in person than through typed text. It will not be for the purpose of argument or of "proving" the other guy "wrong", but to give full explanation and answers to the questions posed.