I have no issue continuing the discussion with the intent of improving safety. I doubt anything you and I will discuss here will have any kind of impact. You seem to believe that a majority of the NDs that happen are a result of following rule #1 to the exclusion of rules 2-4. Could you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
I'd field this one. It seems to me the vast majority of these ND's revolve around the shooter, in a post incident report, claiming to believe the firearm was unloaded. It's a safe assumption that they operated on the assumption that an unloaded gun is harmless and therefore may be handled with little concern of safety. I mean, what's it matter what you do with the gun, it's unloaded!
In reality, the gun was loaded. And their cavalier attitude to safety resulted the death. In this case an officer lost his wife and child due not only to the false assumption of being an inert firearm, but not continuing to follow the other rules. None of the other rules should be invalidated due the condition of the firearm.
To put in another way, once rule #1 is proved to be invalid by checking that the firearm is unloaded, all other rules may be ignored. Or, this appears to be the mindset of the subjects in question here.
The more deviations from a safe gun handling procedure, the more the risks of death go up.
- Pointing in a unsafe direction? Yes, increase risk.
- Pulling the trigger to dissemble? Yes, increase risk again.
- Not knowing your wife is on the other side of that wall? Yes, increase risk yet again.
- If the gun is loaded, risk increases to a 100% likelihood of a GSW (death may occur)
I'm with ATM in that I find rule #1 isn't instructive, it's descriptive. And as such doesn't readily lend itself to the purposes of teaching others safe handling. To state the rule #1 another way, "if you pull the trigger, it might (or will) go bang!" That doesn't tell me what to do. Maybe for those "intuitive thinkers" this is all it takes, but not everyone learns the way you do. Linear thinkers need the other rules. (Well, we all need the other rules in some ways)
PS Yes, I did just read a book on communication and MBTI. This argument (so often repeated on INGO) makes complete sense to me now.
Last edited: