Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Exactly how do you "treat every gun as (if) it (is) always loaded all the time"? Would that constitute keeping it pointed in a safe direction, with your finger off the trigger until you decided to fire?

I'm reminded of something I learned in early childhood. On Passover, at the Seder table, there comes a point when the youngest child able to do so asks "the four questions"

מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה
מִכָּל הַלֵּילוֹת

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלּוֹ מַצָּה

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלּוֹ מָרוֹר

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אֵין אָנוּ
מַטְבִּילִין אֲפִילוּ פַּעַם אֶחָת
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
בֵּין יוֹשְׁבִין וּבֵין מְסֻבִּין
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלָּנוּ מְסֻבִּין

​

For those of you who don't read Hebrew , that says,
"Why is this night different from all other nights?

On all other nights, we eat both bread and matzah. On this night, only matzah.

On all other nights, we eat many herbs. On this night, we especially eat bitter herbs.

On all other nights, we do not dip vegetables at all. Tonight, we dip them twice.

On all other nights, some sit and others recline to eat. Tonight, we all recline."

That's called the "Four Questions", but in truth, as you see, there is but one question.


So there is but one question here: If your firearm is handled safely at all times, what does it matter whether or not it is loaded?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but Bill, that's poetry. So it doesn't count.

Also, in the NRA 3 rules we have the rule "ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot."

Really? Are there ever times you would need, not only to have your finger on the trigger, but press it when you have no intention of shooting? Yes. There are. I'm not ready to shoot anything when I'm dryfire practicing. Also, for some guns I must actuate the trigger to break it down. Every time I clean those guns, I necessarily break NRA rule #2.

And this goes to what I've been saying all along. When we compact all the concepts of safe and effective gun handling into a few bullet points, they need to be explained beyond just the words. All of them.

There are situations in which some or all the rules must be broken for safe and effective gun handling. So when unpacking the rules, whichever rules you're teaching, please explain that. Let's not expect that we have to concoct just 3 or 4 bullet points for rules, and that they should be such that they must be literally observable for every second of ever day. That's not realistic. The purpose of the bullet points is to create a mental pointer to the more expansive concepts that have been taught.

Exactly how do you "treat every gun as (if) it (is) always loaded all the time"? Would that constitute keeping it pointed in a safe direction, with your finger off the trigger until you decided to fire?

I'm reminded of something I learned in early childhood. On Passover, at the Seder table, there comes a point when the youngest child able to do so asks "the four questions"

מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה
מִכָּל הַלֵּילוֹת

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלּוֹ מַצָּה

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלּוֹ מָרוֹר

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אֵין אָנוּ
מַטְבִּילִין אֲפִילוּ פַּעַם אֶחָת
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים

שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין
בֵּין יוֹשְׁבִין וּבֵין מְסֻבִּין
הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, כֻּלָּנוּ מְסֻבִּין

​

For those of you who don't read Hebrew , that says,
"Why is this night different from all other nights?

On all other nights, we eat both bread and matzah. On this night, only matzah.

On all other nights, we eat many herbs. On this night, we especially eat bitter herbs.

On all other nights, we do not dip vegetables at all. Tonight, we dip them twice.

On all other nights, some sit and others recline to eat. Tonight, we all recline."

That's called the "Four Questions", but in truth, as you see, there is but one question.


So there is but one question here: If your firearm is handled safely at all times, what does it matter whether or not it is loaded?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

...Also, in the NRA 3 rules we have the rule "ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot."

Really? Are there ever times you would need, not only to have your finger on the trigger, but press it when you have no intention of shooting? Yes. There are. I'm not ready to shoot anything when I'm dryfire practicing. Also, for some guns I must actuate the trigger to break it down. Every time I clean those guns, I necessarily break NRA rule #2...

Ready to shoot does not mean that you intend for it to actually launch a projectile - indeed you may want to preclude it from doing so when you pull the trigger in many instances - only that you're ready to shoot, ready to own the consequences of that occurring when you pull the trigger. No rule violation in either case.

 

[jamil]

Ready to shoot does not mean that you intend for it to actually launch a projectile - indeed you may want to preclude it from doing so when you pull the trigger in many instances - only that you're ready to shoot, ready to own the consequences of that occurring when you pull the trigger. No rule violation in either case.

Tut, tut, tut! You had to explain it, therefore, by some INGO standards, it's invalid as a rule.

In reality, of course that's silly. It doesn't matter if you need to unpack a rule because the literal words can't be universally applied.

 

[foszoe]

Now I vacillate

All guns are always loaded has been demonstrated to be a false statement so we need 3 rules.

So if someone changes the wording to as if they are loaded, the rule becomes unnecessary because the other rules have you covered.

Now rule 2 says nothing about intending or owning. It says ready to shoot.

So if I am ready to clean, I am not ready to shoot.

So now we only need rule 1.

 

[jamil]

Now I vacillate

All guns are always loaded has been demonstrated to be a false statement so we need 3 rules.

So if someone changes the wording to as if they are loaded, the rule becomes unnecessary because the other rules have you covered.

Now rule 2 says nothing about intending or owning. It says ready to shoot.

So if I am ready to clean, I am not ready to shoot.

So now we only need rule 1.

Okay. Here you go. Don't shoot stuff or people that don't need shot.

 

[CTS]

When I hand someone a pistol, I check the chamber first.
Then, typically, they will check it again.
And that's how is should be.

When I hand someone a pistol, unless they're planning to shoot it right away, the action is open.

 

[ATM]

Tut, tut, tut! You had to explain it, therefore, by some INGO standards, it's invalid as a rule.

In reality, of course that's silly. It doesn't matter if you need to unpack a rule because the literal words can't be universally applied.

If explaining what a rule means and correcting misrepresentations can be accomplished without redefining the words, that's better than requiring that we redefine the words or statements contained within.

To equate ready exclusively with intending as you did does not require redefining ready, only explaining the error of conflating those words.

I'm ready for an economic collapse, I do not intend to cause one.

 

[ATM]

I do like these practical exercises, seems like anyone could do it!

 

[foszoe]

Ready to shoot does not mean that you intend for it to actually launch a projectile - indeed you may want to preclude it from doing so when you pull the trigger in many instances - only that you're ready to shoot, ready to own the consequences of that occurring when you pull the trigger. No rule violation in either case.

So is this the specific rule where when I am telling someone to treat every gun as if it were loaded means I am further explaining what ready to shoot means?

 

[jamil]

If explaining what a rule means and correcting misrepresentations can be accomplished without redefining the words, that's better than requiring that we redefine the words or statements contained within.

To equate ready exclusively with intending as you did does not require redefining ready, only explaining the error of conflating those words.

I'm ready for an economic collapse, I do not intend to cause one.

I think you fallen short of your point. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. When you break down your Glock, are you ready to shoot? If not, then why is your finger on the trigger operating it? Well, I'll tell you why. It's because you're not planning to shoot anything. You're breaking it down to clear it. Rule #2 as stated has exceptions. Taken as literally as you take traditional rule #1 for your purposes of ridiculing it, NRA rule #2 doesn't literally address when you're not planning to shoot and need to operate the trigger.

But instead of acknowledging that NRA rule #2 can't be taken as literally as you want people to take traditional rule #1, you're now trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to explain what NRA rule #2 *really* means, while dancing around the fact that you argued before that supporters of traditional rule #1 don't get to explain theirs.

Why go through all of that? It's okay if there are exceptions to NRA rule #2, just like it's okay if there are exceptions to traditional rule #1.

Again I'll say this: Having a handful of concise bullet-point rules as pointers to more comprehensive concepts is useful for helping people remember those comprehensive concepts. But let's not expect the bullet point versions to say all that the concepts mean. They're just memory pointers. When you teach the rules you teach, do you just recite the bullet points and call class over? I doubt it. I imagine you go through each point and unpack the concepts.

 

[ATM]

So is this the specific rule where when I am telling someone to treat every gun as if it were loaded means I am further explaining what ready to shoot means?

I had to read that a couple times, but yes, I do believe that your intent in telling that to people is to explain the importance of safe gun handling which includes being prepared for the gun to fire a projectile (its only job) while ensuring that you prevent or mitigate the undesired effects of such.

I question only the method here, not the intent.

When you say 'treat every gun as if it were loaded', you're trying to give them a reason for following the other steps, right? Good intent. But, wait, what's the other way to treat a gun? What's the opposite of loaded? Say it out loud a few times. Sound familiar?

I favor just teaching folks that this is safe gun handling. What's the other way to handle guns? Oh heck yeah, I already like this answer much better!
What's the opposite of safe? There's the undeniable root truth one must admit when they choose to violate or ignore the steps for safe gun handling.

The universal excuse for unsafe gun handling, "I thought it was unloaded" should no longer garner several indignant knee-jerk replies of "ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED!" That's just really not helpful at all. I'm pretty sure many of the culprits already have that one memorized.

Maybe something a bit more helpful like, "OK, but why were you handling the gun unsafely?" Wouldn't that be apt and refreshing?

 

[ATM]

I think you fallen short of your point. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. When you break down your Glock, are you ready to shoot? If not, then why is your finger on the trigger operating it? Well, I'll tell you why. It's because you're not planning to shoot anything. You're breaking it down to clear it. Rule #2 as stated has exceptions. Taken as literally as you take traditional rule #1 for your purposes of ridiculing it, NRA rule #2 doesn't literally address when you're not planning to shoot and need to operate the trigger.

But instead of acknowledging that NRA rule #2 can't be taken as literally as you want people to take traditional rule #1, you're now trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to explain what NRA rule #2 *really* means, while dancing around the fact that you argued before that supporters of traditional rule #1 don't get to explain theirs.

Why go through all of that? It's okay if there are exceptions to NRA rule #2, just like it's okay if there are exceptions to traditional rule #1.

Again I'll say this: Having a handful of concise bullet-point rules as pointers to more comprehensive concepts is useful for helping people remember those comprehensive concepts. But let's not expect the bullet point versions to say all that the concepts mean. They're just memory pointers. When you teach the rules you teach, do you just recite the bullet points and call class over? I doubt it. I imagine you go through each point and unpack the concepts.

Just accept that ready more generally means 'prepared', not necessarily 'intending' or 'planning' as you keep trying to apply it, and you'll see that I didn't have to rationalize anything, I'm just pointing out a simple mistake.

I get your point about unpacking, but starting with something both simple and sound is fairly important.

ETA:

I decide to clean a gun. Let's go through this:

I'm going to handle it so I need to keep it pointed in a safe direction. Do I have one? Do I need to find or create a safe direction?

I'll keep my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to shoot. I don't intend to shoot right now nor am I planning to, but I must be prepared for the gun to do its only job so I also keep it pointed in the safe direction.

Since I don't want it to discharge a round, I will unload it or verify that it is unloaded.

Now I need to disassemble it which requires activating the trigger on many guns. Although I've taken steps to prevent it from firing a projectile, I intend to pull the trigger now and must be prepared (ready) for the fact that if I made an error, if it is not unloaded, it will shoot a projectile at high speed in the safe direction I have it pointed.

<Pulls trigger, disassembles gun, ignores rules for safe gun handling while cleaning parts>

Now I'm reassembling, apply safe gun handling when it again becomes a gun.

Any violations of safe gun handling? Anything unclear? Am I still rationalizing?

 

[jamil]

This reminds me of "it depends what the definition of is, is."

I still think one pointer would suffice. Don't shoot anything that don't need shot.

Now that I think about it I am certain there is a target at the range I frequent that needs shot many times with various bullet weights. I think I'll pack my range bag.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

I had to read that a couple times, but yes, I do believe that your intent in telling that to people is to explain the importance of safe gun handling which includes being prepared for the gun to fire a projectile (its only job) while ensuring that you prevent or mitigate the undesired effects of such.

I question only the method here, not the intent.

When you say 'treat every gun as if it were loaded', you're trying to give them a reason for following the other steps, right? Good intent. But, wait, what's the other way to treat a gun? What's the opposite of loaded? Say it out loud a few times. Sound familiar?

I favor just teaching folks that this is safe gun handling. What's the other way to handle guns? Oh heck yeah, I already like this answer much better!
What's the opposite of safe? There's the undeniable root truth one must admit when they choose to violate or ignore the steps for safe gun handling.

The universal excuse for unsafe gun handling, "I thought it was unloaded" should no longer garner several indignant knee-jerk replies of "ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED!" That's just really not helpful at all. I'm pretty sure many of the culprits already have that one memorized.

Maybe something a bit more helpful like, "OK, but why were you handling the gun unsafely?" Wouldn't that be apt and refreshing?

Impressive, +1. Well said.

 

[BugI02]

If explaining what a rule means and correcting misrepresentations can be accomplished without redefining the words, that's better than requiring that we redefine the words or statements contained within.

To equate ready exclusively with intending as you did does not require redefining ready, only explaining the error of conflating those words.

I'm ready for an economic collapse, I do not intend to cause one.

BugI02 heartily approves this analogy and may, in fact, steal it

 

[ATM]

Update:

Finally got together for conversation with MTC and Bill of Rights. It was an enjoyable visit and we touched on many topics: gun handling, libertarian philosophies, nutrition and fitness, learning and educational theories and practices... bacon. You guys are awesome.

Regarding safe gun handling, our primary objective, Whatever MTC had hoped or assumed would be achieved more easily via face to face discussion did not occur, in that I still don't grok the necessity, preeminent positioning or importance of “traditional rule 1”. I never believed it was his intention to convince me of anything, only that upon further clarifying his take on its importance that I might see it in a different light. Nope, but enjoyed the discussion all the same. I think we generally all had a good time that day but I will only focus on that which is pertinent to this thread here.

I don't speak for MTC or Bill, these are only my reflections. Also note that I hate typing more than Bill but not as much as MTC.

A few things I gathered from MTC's explanations were:

He doesn't want people asking, "Is it loaded?" His instruction would be a firm, "THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED." He favors this over the "treat it as if..." version.

It doesn't bother me if people ask, as guns can be loaded or unloaded. I'll even show them how we safely determine the answer and how to change that status depending on their intended use.

He wants people to check for themselves the status of any gun they handle. Now, I don't consider this to be a inherent corollary of ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED, so further explanation was admittedly critical here to unpack this as an action item from that heading.

So, why not just give that item its own heading? Tell them what you want them to do directly? Still not sure.

I suggested that I don't want people associating a status check with the first thing they should do when picking up a gun. I want them to first consider a safe direction to keep it pointed before they even pick it up, not as an afterthought once they've cleared it. I want them to keep their finger off the trigger when they pick it up, not after they've cleared it.

To backtrack, it was admittedly necessary to have explained all the steps so they would know to inherently be practicing all of them before first clearing the gun they were going to handle.

I brought up sequential processing and order of operations, how knowledge is best transferred and ultimately retained when presented in the natural manner by which it should later be processed and put into action. This led to a good analogy which I plan to develop a bit more:

CPR instruction. Although some of the details changed through the years, one could never forget the ABCs of rendering emergency aid: Airway, Breathing, Chest compressions.

Absolutely brilliant! General and concise steps, in their order of importance and suggested execution, linked to a mnemonic locked in since grade school!

Yes, that was true, ATM, but now they've changed it to CAB. Indeed they did, and I seriously doubt they approached the need for such a modification to the traditional method memorized by millions lightly. But, change it they did finding that it would be necessary in order to achieve better results. This was much more than the various minor breaths to compressions ratios changed over the years, this was a change of fundamental preeminence. Compressions are now recognized to be more initially critical than airway/breaths.

Well, ATM, you do it your way and I'll do it mine. I learned CPR in the Army 30 years ago and ABC has always worked just fine.
Sure, if you're uninterested in achieving better results, keep doing it the traditional way. It won't suddenly work any better or worse than it always has.

On the other hand, if anyone has an actual reason to reject a proposed improvement and retain the traditional, I'd love to hear why (and so would the [STRIKE]National Rifle[/STRIKE] American Heart Association).

I still plan to start a new thread on this subject (maybe next week, this was a lot of typing) but will entertain any lingering arguments, discussion, suggestions, snarky pot shots, etc. This one's run a pretty interesting course.

Thanks.

 

[jamil]

Update:

Finally got together for conversation with MTC and Bill of Rights. It was an enjoyable visit and we touched on many topics: gun handling, libertarian philosophies, nutrition and fitness, learning and educational theories and practices... bacon. You guys are awesome.

Regarding safe gun handling, our primary objective, Whatever MTC had hoped or assumed would be achieved more easily via face to face discussion did not occur, in that I still don't grok the necessity, preeminent positioning or importance of “traditional rule 1”. I never believed it was his intention to convince me of anything, only that upon further clarifying his take on its importance that I might see it in a different light. Nope, but enjoyed the discussion all the same. I think we generally all had a good time that day but I will only focus on that which is pertinent to this thread here.

I don't speak for MTC or Bill, these are only my reflections. Also note that I hate typing more than Bill but not as much as MTC.

A few things I gathered from MTC's explanations were:

He doesn't want people asking, "Is it loaded?" His instruction would be a firm, "THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED." He favors this over the "treat it as if..." version.

It doesn't bother me if people ask, as guns can be loaded or unloaded. I'll even show them how we safely determine the answer and how to change that status depending on their intended use.

He wants people to check for themselves the status of any gun they handle. Now, I don't consider this to be a inherent corollary of ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED, so further explanation was admittedly critical here to unpack this as an action item from that heading.

So, why not just give that item its own heading? Tell them what you want them to do directly? Still not sure.

I suggested that I don't want people associating a status check with the first thing they should do when picking up a gun. I want them to first consider a safe direction to keep it pointed before they even pick it up, not as an afterthought once they've cleared it. I want them to keep their finger off the trigger when they pick it up, not after they've cleared it.

To backtrack, it was admittedly necessary to have explained all the steps so they would know to inherently be practicing all of them before first clearing the gun they were going to handle.

I brought up sequential processing and order of operations, how knowledge is best transferred and ultimately retained when presented in the natural manner by which it should later be processed and put into action. This led to a good analogy which I plan to develop a bit more:

CPR instruction. Although some of the details changed through the years, one could never forget the ABCs of rendering emergency aid: Airway, Breathing, Chest compressions.

Absolutely brilliant! General and concise steps, in their order of importance and suggested execution, linked to a mnemonic locked in since grade school!

Yes, that was true, ATM, but now they've changed it to CAB. Indeed they did, and I seriously doubt they approached the need for such a modification to the traditional method memorized by millions lightly. But, change it they did finding that it would be necessary in order to achieve better results. This was much more than the various minor breaths to compressions ratios changed over the years, this was a change of fundamental preeminence. Compressions are now recognized to be more initially critical than airway/breaths.

Well, ATM, you do it your way and I'll do it mine. I learned CPR in the Army 30 years ago and ABC has always worked just fine.
Sure, if you're uninterested in achieving better results, keep doing it the traditional way. It won't suddenly work any better or worse than it always has.

On the other hand, if anyone has an actual reason to reject a proposed improvement and retain the traditional, I'd love to hear why (and so would the [STRIKE]National Rifle[/STRIKE] American Heart Association).

I still plan to start a new thread on this subject (maybe next week, this was a lot of typing) but will entertain any lingering arguments, discussion, suggestions, snarky pot shots, etc. This one's run a pretty interesting course.

Thanks.

It sounds like a great conversation to have had. I think the analogy is useful, and should bring out something that doesn't necessarily support a need for change. I've never taken CPR training so I don't know for sure. But did the change from ABC to CAB made due to an opinion? Was research involved? Was it supported by new information? Was it changed just because someone argued the new way was better?

I'm not opposed to change, and I'm certainly not opposed to THIS change. But I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change. I want to have to have a compelling reason. Show me why the new way is better than the old. Support it with information. Demonstrate the attributes of the new way are indeed an improvement over the old. You can make logical sounding arguments for or against something. But if the empiricals don't match the logicals, maybe the logicals don't consider or accurately weight all the factors.

Again, I'm not trying to argue for or against. If there were no other reasons for changing, I can see where it would be beneficial to have everyone teach the same rules. And if that ever happens I think it would be good to put more more thought into the wording, especially to avoid colloquial phrasing.

 

[ATM]

It sounds like a great conversation to have had. I think the analogy is useful, and should bring out something that doesn't necessarily support a need for change. I've never taken CPR training so I don't know for sure. But did the change from ABC to CAB made due to an opinion? Was research involved? Was it supported by new information? Was it changed just because someone argued the new way was better?

I suspect that the proposed change was contrasted with the currently accepted order and that both were fully scrutinized from a variety of perspectives before a consensus was achieved. In this example, as a volunteer emergency responder with a low level of medical knowledge, I simply adopted whatever became the new standard. If I had a more educated medical opinion or concern, I would have ensured that it was considered during the deliberations. This decision to change was not based on simple reasoning or even educational theory, more so an understanding of physiology and medical practice.

I'm not opposed to change, and I'm certainly not opposed to THIS change. But I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change. I want to have to have a compelling reason. Show me why the new way is better than the old. Support it with information. Demonstrate the attributes of the new way are indeed an improvement over the old. You can make logical sounding arguments for or against something. But if the empiricals don't match the logicals, maybe the logicals don't consider or accurately weight all the factors.

I have offered clarity, critical preeminence of order, simplicity, efficiency/sufficiency, precision, instructional and corrective advantages, etc. Which empiricals do you believe are available which would impact the compelling reasonableness of these points or negate considering them improvements?

Again, I'm not trying to argue for or against. If there were no other reasons for changing, I can see where it would be beneficial to have everyone teach the same rules. And if that ever happens I think it would be good to put more more thought into the wording, especially to avoid colloquial phrasing.

I've listed many other reasons for changing, though you may not find any of them or the total compelling. I have not proposed change for change's sake, I've explained the reasons why I adopted one and abandoned the other and challenged others to do the same. Aside from perpetuating the old (ABC in the case of CPR instruction), I really don't care what folks cling to for themselves. I'm more concerned about the next generation who should be learning and passing along the CAB version up front without confusing them.

 

[jamil]

What I would find the most compelling evidence is something that says the people who've learned it one way tend to have fewer NDs.