Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[SubicWarrior1988]

In an attempt to bring this back to the beginning, regarding the OP and title of this thread:

How would this have played out with the OP adhering to the 3 NRA rules for safe gun handling, assuming the same exact scenario that the other party had neglected to follow them?

Would the title be more or less clear and instructive for the readers by quoting NRA #3?

Would NRA #3 be more or less detailed as to the precise nature of the error and associated remedy?

Would the OP have been able to memorize and follow 3 rules to accomplish the same result or is 4 easier, clearer and/or more concise. (Obviously rhetorical - the OP is a very sharp and competent individual. Please insert yourself or any experience level of hypothetical gun handler into this scenario).

And finally, if the 3 NRA rules for safe gun handling were the widely accepted norm here on INGO, would there be more or less discussion of metaphoric meanings, more or less discussion of the actual violation, more or less debate over stating simply the nature of the violation and the actual remedy?

ATM, I actually think that this post should have been your FIRST POST that was presented in the thread.

If the NRA3 were presented from a TEACHING perspective, it would be much more effective than from an ARGUMENT perspective.

Here are the main points I would TEACH:

1) The NRA3 are a SEQUENTIAL set of rules to be followed. I would spend more time explaining this concept and each rule in order of importance and WHY they are important and in the order that they are in. I would also explain WHY teaching a simplified method is beneficial to the gun community as a whole.

2) That Cooper's Rule #1 is addressed in #3 of NRA. I would post the NRA link and copy/paste the exact verbage from #3 to drive this point home.
(I actually asked where the NRA3 prompted me to unload a pistol and didn't receive a direct answer, that would have saved 40 or so posts from me)



Here's the WIN:

The NRA3 are more simple to follow (3 actionable rules)
People understand the WHY of the rules and why the order of importance
By including cooper's rule 1 into NRA #3, it eliminates the need for "sides" to be taken and "arguments" to be won, we all want the same thing, safety.

Think about it, if there are Millions of gun owners that have the 4 rules ingrained into their safety mindset, what would be easier:

Debating them all and Winning argument by argument

OR

Teaching and showing how the already existing 4 rules are incorporated into the NRA3. No new concept to learn, no resistance to change, simply applying already known safety skill sets.

It shouldn't take 42 pages for the NRA3 to be fleshed out as a concept, that should have happened in the first couple of pages.

That being said, I think as a concept, I'm in favor of the NRA3 as I've come to understand it. I think that there is certainly room to improve the method of delivery, if simplifying safety is the goal, it should be presented is a simple manner.

2 cents.

 

[ATM]

ATM, I actually think that this post should have been your FIRST POST that was presented in the thread.

...

2 cents.

That was a whopping and greatly appreciated 2 cents worth.

That it took so many posts to figure out how I should proceed in my endeavor is partly my own inadequacy in fleshing out hypothetical counter-arguments rarely presented. I tend to get a lot of evasion and sarcastic pot-shots but very little helpful debate to nail down the real divisive issues. Certainly, I can accept part of the blame for that as well due to my approach.

This has been the most productive thread yet for me on this topic and I've learned, adapted and tried to refine as it progressed.

I'm very thankful for those who engaged in discussion and do plan to start a new thread in the near future with a different approach as suggested here.

I wish more had taken up the opportunity to really join in as there were a few in this thread (and past threads) with a wealth of experience who never got past the fact that we disagree to discussing why. I suppose that's primarily my loss.

 

[KLB]

I look forward to the new thread. You've gotten me to think about the safety rules in new ways. Contemplation of this type is never a bad thing.

 

[jamil]

That was a whopping and greatly appreciated 2 cents worth.

That it took so many posts to figure out how I should proceed in my endeavor is partly my own inadequacy in fleshing out hypothetical counter-arguments rarely presented. I tend to get a lot of evasion and sarcastic pot-shots but very little helpful debate to nail down the real divisive issues. Certainly, I can accept part of the blame for that as well due to my approach.

This has been the most productive thread yet for me on this topic and I've learned, adapted and tried to refine as it progressed.

I'm very thankful for those who engaged in discussion and do plan to start a new thread in the near future with a different approach as suggested here.

I wish more had taken up the opportunity to really join in as there were a few in this thread (and past threads) with a wealth of experience who never got past the fact that we disagree to discussing why. I suppose that's primarily my loss.

As one of the ones who comes at you with sarcastic pot-shots, I tend to do that when people make arguments a certain way. If you'd have started with something like, "hey, maybe it would be less confusing if we taught this instead of that..." you would have gotten some agreement.

I think I would be more inclined to agree with you if your approach were less in-your-face, and your goals were more practical than to "purge the nonsense". If your goals were, say, just to teach the truth, I'd be okay with that.

I think one of the best arguments against rule #1 is to get people to concede that since we don't really treat all guns as if they're loaded, rule 1 at least needs to be explained in a practical sense. There are some things we do with unloaded guns that we'd never do with loaded guns. We don't dry-fire with loaded guns--by definition, that's impossible. We don't break down loaded guns, especially guns that require the trigger pressed to remove the slide. Even if we use Kirk's bucket-o-sand, we still wouldn't find many reasons to point a gun we know is loaded into the bucket and pull the trigger. So it's impractical to literally treat all guns as loaded all the time.

On the other hand, that's also an argument in favor of at least having a mindset of needing to know the status of a gun before you do what you intend to do with it. I wouldn't dry-fire a gun I know is loaded, so I'm not going to dry-fire a gun that I don't know the status of. Also, I wouldn't holster and carry an unloaded gun, so I'm not going to holster and carry a gun until I know for sure it's loaded. So really, the status of the gun does matter to us in terms of what we plan to do with it. And there are rules that when followed, will keep us and others safe.

Somewhere in learning safe and effective gun handling, all that needs to be addressed. And that part of it doesn't have to be expressly worded in a nifty 3 or 4-part set of rules. I've never seen either set of rules taught as just the bullet points alone. Each rule is always unpacked, with examples and scenarios to help people learn the applications. So teach the 3 rules. Or, if someone is going to teach the 4 rules, be real about it and unpack the first one honestly. Because not all guns are actually loaded. Sometimes you don't want them loaded. Sometimes you absolutely want them loaded.

 

[ATM]

jamil,

You bring far more than mere sarcastic pot-shots. Your participation has been most helpful from the angles you've chosen and did not appear to be selectively evading any particular points of discussion. I adapted and refined based upon some of the insights you shared.

 

[ATM]

Part of my problem is that I just really enjoy arguing. I mean, I can't help but smile when I contemplate this:

...Think about it, if there are Millions of gun owners that have the 4 rules ingrained into their safety mindset, what would be easier:

Debating them all and Winning argument by argument

OR...

Let's not get hasty with the OR here, that sounds wonderful!


Luckily, I hate typing and greatly value efficiency and effectiveness. This topic seems more important than to make it my own pet argument fodder - it belongs to us all. My next foray will be better (or at least less argumentative).

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Part of my problem is that I just really enjoy arguing. I mean, I can't help but smile when I contemplate this:



Let's not get hasty with the OR here, that sounds wonderful!


Luckily, I hate typing and greatly value efficiency and effectiveness. This topic seems more important than to make it my own pet argument fodder - it belongs to us all. My next foray will be better (or at least less argumentative).

Post of the day. lol.

 

[crispy]

Think about it, if there are Millions of gun owners that have the 4 rules ingrained into their safety mindset,

"the 4 rules"

You keep saying that like it means anything.

What 4 rules?

I'll make it easy. What is rule #1?

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

"the 4 rules"

You keep saying that like it means anything.

What 4 rules?

I'll make it easy. What is rule #1?

Let me google that for you

 

[indiucky]

Part of my problem is that I just really enjoy arguing. I mean, I can't help but smile when I contemplate this:

Et tu Brutus? Et tu?

Leadeye just left and I confessed to him that I sometimes spin a cowboy revolver on my finger...As an Evangelical follower of the four rules I just had to make that confession...I have even pulled up youtube videos of folks doing it to increase my speed......

"Hello, my name is Indiucky...And sometimes late at night in the comfort of my man cave while watching a western...I...Lord this is hard..I sometimes...I sometimes spin a cowboy gun on my finger....There..I said it...."

 

[crispy]

Let me google that for you

Yup. I found umpteen different versions of Rule #1.

 

[jamil]

"the 4 rules"

You keep saying that like it means anything.

What 4 rules?

I'll make it easy. What is rule #1?

Seems like we're kinda past that phase of the conversation. Keep up, man.

 

[crispy]

Seems like we're kinda past that phase of the conversation. Keep up, man.

People keep arguing 4 rules vs. 3 rules. I just want to know which version of the 4 rules?

It actually makes a big difference for me. I can't be the only one.

If it is between Jeff Cooper's Original 4 rules vs. NRA 3 rules, then I have to go with the 3.

If it is between everybody's modified 4 rules vs. NRA 3 rules, then maybe I like the idea of 4.

My point is you can't even begin the conversation before you decide which set you're arguing.

(Yes ATM, I know, you're 3 either way.)

 

[ATM]

Once it was concluded that NRA #3 represented what so many consider traditional #1 to invoke as a response, the convo did change course somewhat.

If those two are indeed a comparable pair, and two of the others from each set are most certainly comparable pairs (nearly identical), it seems any further argument would be:

1. The nuances of difference in contrasting each pairing.

2. The odd rule out, traditional #4 with no counterpart.
(My contention is that this is an expansion of what truly constitutes a safe direction rather than a separate step deserving a separate number).

...(Yes ATM, I know, you're 3 either way.)

I'll afford a bit of steeping time with 3 before whittling any further.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

People keep arguing 4 rules vs. 3 rules. I just want to know which version of the 4 rules?

It actually makes a big difference for me. I can't be the only one.

If it is between Jeff Cooper's Original 4 rules vs. NRA 3 rules, then I have to go with the 3.

If it is between everybody's modified 4 rules vs. NRA 3 rules, then maybe I like the idea of 4.

My point is you can't even begin the conversation before you decide which set you're arguing.

(Yes ATM, I know, you're 3 either way.)

Actually, the conversation has not only started, it has evolved quite nicely. It's amazing what honest dialogue can achieve.

 

[foszoe]

All rules are meant to be broken

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

All rules are meant to be broken

Now THAT'S a fly in the ointment, a monkey in the wrench

- John McClain

 

[Bill of Rights]

All rules are meant to be broken

Except the ones in my sig.

 

[ART338WM]

My brother did THE SAME EXACT thing to me YEARS ago. He handed me his brand new shiny Beretta .380 auto and says; "Try the double action is it so smooth" I first noticed it was kinda heavy for a unloaded firearm and I proceed to eject the mag and to my surprise it's loaded, then I rack the slide and a nice shiny 90 grain FMJ goes flying.

Yep treat EVERY GUN as it ALWAYS loaded ALL THE TIME.

 

[MTC]

... rule 1 at least needs to be explained in a practical sense...

... having a mindset of needing to know the status of a gun before you do what you intend to do with it. I wouldn't dry-fire a gun I know is loaded, so I'm not going to dry-fire a gun that I don't know the status of. Also, I wouldn't holster and carry an unloaded gun, so I'm not going to holster and carry a gun until I know for sure it's loaded. So really, the status of the gun does matter to us in terms of what we plan to do with it. And there are rules that when followed, will keep us and others safe.

Somewhere in learning safe and effective gun handling, all that needs to be addressed. And that part of it doesn't have to be expressly worded in a nifty 3 or 4-part set of rules. I've never seen either set of rules taught as just the bullet points alone. Each rule is always unpacked, with examples and scenarios to help people learn the applications. So teach the 3 rules. Or, if someone is going to teach the 4 rules, be real about it and unpack the first one honestly. Because not all guns are actually loaded. Sometimes you don't want them loaded. Sometimes you absolutely want them loaded.

One day, if I ever become independently wealthy, I'll offer Jamil a job as my online spokesman.

Part of my problem is that I just really enjoy arguing.

Despite agreement on so many issues, we are diametrically opposed in this predisposition. Thus my offer to drive two hours to explain. Not argue. Explain. If a person sincerely wants an explanation about a given topic, I'm willing to offer one in good faith.

Luckily, I hate typing and greatly value efficiency and effectiveness.

Agree. Have no training in typing and even if I did, consider it an inferior form of communication compared to direct speech in person, which is much more efficient and effective. Tone of voice, inflection, articulation, body language, i.e. the human element --all these are missing in printed text or subject to misinterpretation through inference.

Thank you for your most hospitable invitation and I look forward to visiting you soon.