Had a squib once lodge a wad cutter right in the throat of a revolver. That was different, having to beat the bullet back into the case with a dowel just to unlock the cylinder.
Jeff presented the 4 rules in numerous "slightly different" texts, which one are you referring to?No, that's not how Cooper presented them. If I were you, I would go back and review that lecture.
Don't take anything here personal. Just talking about guns.
I highlighted the important part because I'm sure you'll glaze right over it if I didn't point it out; it's contrary to your position and you can't possibly be wrong... It would be inconvenient for you acknowledge that Cooper himself allowed exceptions.ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADEDThe only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.
Dowel and dead blow hammer is the ticket, as I recently learned.
Jeff presented the 4 rules in numerous "slightly different" texts, which one are you referring to?
I highlighted the important part because I'm sure you'll glaze right over it if I didn't point it out; it's contrary to your position and you can't possibly be wrong... It would be inconvenient for you acknowledge that Cooper himself allowed exceptions.
Let me ask you this, do you acknowledge that rule 2 has an exception to only be applicable to gun that are being handled?
So you're only willing to accept Cooper's rules as gospel as they were presented in a specific format at a specific time & place but are unwilling to accept them as he presented them at another point?I made reference to the video. It is the same as his lectures at Gunsite. In fact it is filmed at Gunsite.
I don't need to watch the video again, the point has been made. You relentlessly point to Cooper as the God of 4 Rules yet are unwilling to accept the fact that even he allowed exceptions; he even called them exceptions. Yet when that matter is shown to you, you just can't deal with that fact so you dodge it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's laughable.What? I'm the one that brought up Cooper and told you to watch the video on his lecture.
I'm not looking for justification for anything. Just pointing out that you're a hypocrite.Look, I understand people want a justification for doing stupid crap with guns. There are no justifications for being foolish.
Which version of Cooper's rules should I follow?If you have to work on a gun, then follow Cooper's rules, that means unloading it and doing such things as removing the bolt from the weapon before pointing the gun at your face (which people seem obsessed with).
So you're only willing to accept Cooper's rules as gospel as they were presented in a specific format at a specific time & place but are unwilling to accept them as he presented them at another point?
I don't need to watch the video again, the point has been made.
You relentlessly point to Cooper as the God of 4 Rules yet are unwilling to accept the fact that even he allowed exceptions;
Yet when that matter is shown to you, you just can't deal with that fact so you dodge it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's laughable.
'm not looking for justification for anything. Just pointing out that you're a hypocrite.
Which version of Cooper's rules should I follow?
And if I'm reading this right it appears you now accept that making a gun inoperable is a permissible exception to allowing the gun to point at your body?
If you have to work on a gun, then follow Cooper's rules, that means unloading it and doing such things as removing the bolt from the weapon before pointing the gun at your face (which people seem obsessed with).
Thanks BBI, I don't have to look that one up... the point was made for me, no need to respond to Kirk's above "answer without answering anything".https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...erly-holstered-handgun-considered-safe-4.html
Interesting that you argued so hard and with such derision against that very concept, yet now it's just a matter of fact that it's safe to do so. You've got some good information, but you get to tied up in being right that your delivery sucks and you become more concerned with being right than with presenting relevant information. I'd be happy to discuss it in person and see if your Internet persona matches your real life persona. Mine does, only with a lot more cursing. I like cursing. It's like my paint and the world is my canvas. I'll be in Indiucky's shop Friday, and he really likes you so maybe stop in....which also brings us back to the topic here. Indiucky did something cool with a cool gun and he runs a shop (museum) that has Dr. Pepper. Go there.
Interesting that you argued so hard and with such derision against that very concept, yet now it's just a matter of fact that it's safe to do so.
I'll be in Indiucky's shop Friday, and he really likes you so maybe stop in....which also brings us back to the topic here. Indiucky did something cool with a cool gun and he runs a shop (museum) that has Dr. Pepper. Go there.
You've got some good information, but you get to tied up in being right that your delivery sucks and you become more concerned with being right than with presenting relevant information.
Most assuredly a firearm in pieces for service or cleaning is not similarly situated to a firearm in a holster.
4) Apply all rules to any firearm mechanically able to fire, regardless of loaded/unloaded status...
That's my own fault. INGO, like most males, is literal. I need to start using footnotes or endnotes or whatever is in my heart.
I'm thinking you didn't go back and actually read it. Do so and tell me you didn't argue against this:
as being "not definitive enough".
Sure. Or not imply people who disagree with you are idiots, have "daddy issues", or whatever derision you feel will deflect away from the argument at the moment. Being snide and over generalizing has turned a lot of folks here against you. If your message is so important, perhaps package it in a way that doesn't turn people off. Frankly, your online tone in the thread I linked is one reason I don't generally bother to interact with you any longer. It's off putting. I'm willing to bet you'd be a bit more polite in person. We'll either get along famously or we'll be free to discuss things in ways that would get us banned here. One way to find out. I expect I'll be there at roughly noon. If Indiucky is up for it, I'll buy pizza for the shop.
You said Friday, he said the 19th. I don't think there'll be a love connection under those parameters.
Hey, uh, I heard Ale-8-One up thread. Where is this magical shop of indiucky's? I've only seen ale-8-one in, well, Kentucky.
And I think it might help to retrospect, are our problems with the four rules or Kirk personally? I don't want to see anybody get the hammer arguing over semantics.
I'm figuring he means if the 19th allows he'll do so on the 20th, but lawyers speak a different language so who knows. Anyway, I'll be there this Friday regardless. Not sure what my work schedule is for the 20th of next month.
I'm thinking you didn't go back and actually read it. Do so and tell me you didn't argue against this:
4) Apply all rules to any firearm mechanically able to fire, regardless of loaded/unloaded status...
as being "not definitive enough".
I'm figuring he means if the 19th allows he'll do so on the 20th, but lawyers speak a different language so who knows. Anyway, I'll be there this Friday regardless. Not sure what my work schedule is for the 20th of next month.