This just happened Thursday in our little corner of SE Indiana.
Gun accidentally discharges in Batesville business | Local News | batesvilleheraldtribune.com
This just happened Thursday in our little corner of SE Indiana.
Gun accidentally discharges in Batesville business | Local News | batesvilleheraldtribune.com
I’ll just say,this advice aint No joke. Ask me how my dumbass knows.
View attachment 67181
This just happened Thursday in our little corner of SE Indiana.
Gun accidentally discharges in Batesville business | Local News | batesvilleheraldtribune.com
Was the last phrase before the POP! a "Eet ain't low-dead" or "Eye been round gunz all meye lie-eef"? Or, a combination thereof?
“It is a gun, always treat it the same,” requires the assumption that “all guns are always loaded.” Absent that assumption it doesn’t make any sense.
For a gun to fire it must be loaded. Behaving as if a gun can fire and thereby cause harm is behaving as if it were loaded. Thus, the “four rules is teaching lies!” line equally condemns the three rules proponents.
“It is a gun, always treat it the same,” requires the assumption that “all guns are always loaded.”
Absent that assumption it doesn’t make any sense.
Just to be clear, in the stove analogy you are still telling people to never, ever touch a burner.ALL STOVES ARE ALWAYS HOT! adherents seem to run out of sound reasoning to support its inclusion pretty quickly these days.
Without the assumption that every firearm is a mechanism capable of doing harm by propelling a projectile right now everything falls apart. If you make that assumption (which you do despite your constant denials) then you are making the same point.No assumptions required to safely handle guns.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to have two (or more) sets of gun handling rules. Glad we're on the same page!What sense does having two sets of gun handling rules make? It doesn't matter if it's loaded or not. Treat it the same.
Exactly. Whether we believe a gun to be loaded or not we treat it by the one acceptable set of rules ... that which guards against the dangers of it doing harm by propelling a projectile right now.It doesn't matter if it's loaded or not. Treat it the same.
Is that your best, ATM? Your opposition in this debate does not in any way disagree that ALWAYS adhering to safe gun handling practices is a must. Insinuating that they are less safe, less capable, or less enlightened does nothing to promote widespread, consistent safe gun handling. I believe that to be your true goal as well as Kirk's, despite the sniping that goes on in both directions.If a person chooses not to ALWAYS adhere to safe gun handling practices, then pretending they're always loaded might be the next best thing for them (and I do hope they continue if that's what it takes).
Whether via pretense or dogma, both schools of thought absolutely do teach the non-intuitive and seemingly irrational idea that an apparently inert mechanism be treated with a reverence reserved for non-inert mechanisms. That is the necessary "falsehood" demanded by both sides. Moreover, the problem lies not with the people on your side who devotedly follow the Three, nor the people on Kirk's side who do the same with the Four. The problems come from the people who reject the "falsehood" of the potential danger of a gun they believe to be unloaded because they know better.Still, let's not go so far as claiming that everyone who chooses to practice safe gun handling does or must pretend likewise.
The problems come from the people who reject the "falsehood" of the potential danger of a gun they believe to be unloaded because they know better.
Is that your best, ATM?
Your opposition in this debate does not in any way disagree that ALWAYS adhering to safe gun handling practices is a must.
Insinuating that they are less safe, less capable, or less enlightened does nothing to promote widespread, consistent safe gun handling.
I believe that to be your true goal as well as Kirk's, despite the sniping that goes on in both directions.
Whether via pretense or dogma, both schools of thought absolutely do teach the non-intuitive and seemingly irrational idea that an apparently inert mechanism be treated with a reverence reserved for non-inert mechanisms. That is the necessary "falsehood" demanded by both sides. Moreover, the problem lies not with the people on your side who devotedly follow the Three, nor the people on Kirk's side who do the same with the Four. The problems come from the people who reject the "falsehood" of the potential danger of a gun they believe to be unloaded because they know better.
To be completely fair, it is a mindset we do not apply in most other scenarios of daily life. Even so, when it comes to guns whether you believe in the refrain that "all guns are always loaded, so always treat them as such" or instead prefer "all guns should always be treated with a set of rules that imply the gun is capable of firing", you necessarily (and correctly) advocate treating a gun in a manner that does not necessarily reflect the literal truth of its ability to actually operate.
NRA 3/3 states: "ALWAYS Keep The Gun Unloaded Until Ready To Use". So there's that. Or are you advocating another ruleset altogether?Which is why loaded status doesn't matter and introducing it is counterproductive. You can argue a gun is loaded or not. You can't argue it's not a gun.