Why do "smart" people point guns at themselves?

[Rob377]

That's not gun handling.

From rule 2:

Do you get it in and out of your holster via telepathy? Impressive!

 

[bwframe]

Do you get it in and out of your holster via telepathy? Impressive!

You point your gun at yourself when you holster and draw?

 

[ATM]

Using the four rules has never failed. No one has ever been shot negligently while using them. Arguing against them fuels the fail for those who don't care for rules at all.

If you can't rationally defend your attachment to the one rule that failed, you shouldn't start threads asking questions that might point to it's continued failure.

All I've ever suggested is getting rid of the failed original. If the other 3 had replaced it rather than being added below it, we wouldn't be asking such silly questions, would we?

 

[Rob377]

You point your gun at yourself when you holster and draw?

I've seen your nice tight. concealment holster, you know. There'd be a nice .45 groove in your ass cheek/hip. Are you willing to have that kind of body piercing, per rule 2?

 

[bwframe]

I've seen your nice tight. concealment holster, you know. There'd be a nice .45 groove in your ass cheek/hip. Are you willing to have that kind of body piercing, per rule 2?

You have not paid much attention then. My gun draws and holsters without pointing at me.

So you do point your gun at yourself then?

 

[Rob377]

You not paid much attention then. My gun draws and holsters without pointing at me.

So you do point your gun at yourself then?

Heh.

If you say so.

 

[bwframe]

If you can't rationally defend your attachment to the one rule that failed, you shouldn't start threads asking questions that might point to it's continued failure.
...

Nothing to defend. Following the four rules prevents negligent discharges.

Your "failure" is nothing but conjecture. No proof.

 

[danielson]

I lived on the third floor in an urban area for 5 years. How do you suppose I was to holster or unholster my loaded weapon without pointing it in an unsafe direction? Since EVERY DIRECTION was an unsafe one. Its a stupid rule, it IS however a great guideline. You have to do your best, but the 4 rules can not always be followed 100% When Im handling firearms in a manner than is going to make me move it around alot, like in the video, I lock the slide back for extra assurance.

 

[ATM]

Nothing to defend. Following the four rules prevents negligent discharges.

Your "failure" is nothing but conjecture. No proof.

We could add 10 more rules that aren't necessary or helpful and still claim that following the 14 rules prevents negligent discharges (because the 3 that are necessary are still contained within them).

Such would not be helpful and could, in fact, return diminished results. No, more is not always better - sometimes less is called for.

Try again.

 

[ATM]

I lived on the third floor in an urban area for 5 years. How do you suppose I was to holster or unholster my loaded weapon without pointing it in an unsafe direction? Since EVERY DIRECTION was an unsafe one. Its a stupid rule, it IS however a great guideline. You have to do your best, but the 4 rules can not always be followed 100% When Im handling firearms in a manner than is going to make me move it around alot, like in the video, I lock the slide back for extra assurance.

Get a bucket of sand. Got anything trickier?

 

[Rob377]

not owning, touching, or training with guns also prevents negligent discharges.


Ergo, people should not own, touch, or train with guns.

 

[bwframe]

I lived on the third floor in an urban area for 5 years. How do you suppose I was to holster or unholster my loaded weapon without pointing it in an unsafe direction?...

There are lots of ways to make the rules work, if you just choose not to fight them.
Trash can full of sand. Pile of phone books. Bathtub full of water. Leave it in the holster. Etc. etc, etc.

 

[danielson]

And stand on top of it while holstering? Maybe I should have filled the bath tub with sand.... The way I got around this issue was pointing it towards the brick outside wall facing the least populated area, and put it in the holster. Then put the holstered firearm on. But, I was still in technical violation, since it was not a SAFE direction.

 

[chezuki]

They do it because contrary to what some rule says, a gun that is unloaded will not harm you.

The Glock in the OP is chambered per the indicator.

 

[jdmack79]

The Glock in the OP is chambered per the indicator.

Snap cap?

 

[churchmouse]

All it takes is to forget for just a moment, at the right time. Any of us could do it.

And have...........we all have.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Many of them "know" and can even recite the 4 rules yet still think nothing of violating the 3 that actually ensure safety once they convince themselves that the first has been satisfied.

Deep down inside, they still consider rules 2-4 conditional upon 1.

The solution to that issue is quite simple...

I'm going to quote this again, as we have already seen one person amongst us that has treated 2-4 differently based upon rule 1.

Couldn't have said it better myself ATM, as usual.

 

[rvb]

it's ok, they aren't loaded.

-rvb

 

[ATM]

Snap cap?

History is replete with assumptions like this being incorrect, but being incorrect alone cannot cause a tragedy.
It is unsafe gun handling that causes tragedies.

I missed your earlier post, you must have snuck it in while I was typing last night.

...Criticize me all you want; after removing all ammunition/loaded mags from the area I'm working in and unloading the gun, I'd have no problem with pointing it at my hand...

So you will handle a gun unsafely as long as you think it's unloaded - thanks for your honesty. Many folks think exactly as you do though they won't as readily admit it.

This is the primary reason I dismiss loaded status (real or imagined) from my decision to handle all guns safely and encourage others to do the same.
I hope you'll at least consider teaching others to adhere to safe gun handling regardless and lead by example even if you choose not to when nobody else is around. Good luck.

 

[CountryBoy19]

That's not gun handling.

From rule 2:...If the weapon is assembled and in someone's hands, it is capable of being discharged. A firearm holstered properly, lying on a table, or placed in a scabbard is of no danger to anyone. Only when handled is there a need for concern...

What is it about being in someone's hands that automatically make it dangerous? There are proven cases of guns discharging when NOT in the hands of somebody. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen. Wouldn't it be prudent that if we were going to make these rules hard rules that have NO exceptions, that they MUST be hard rules regardless of circumstances?

And that is the great flaw with people that try to make the rules hard such as bwframe (we've had this conversation on here before). It is 100% impossible to ALWAYS obey these rules, and therefore we must make reasonable exceptions in some circumstances.

But where do you draw the line? That is the million dollar question; the one that will never be solved, just as 9mm vs .45 will never be solved. Different people have different philosophies, different skill levels, different risk mitigation levels, etc. Every single person is an individual and a lot of them can make decisions for themselves. IMHO, people that belittle others for this are arrogant and full of themselves.

In my opinion, and the opinions of many other qualified individuals here, there are NUMEROUS cases where it is acceptable to point a firearm at yourself and even at another openly participating individual. All involved persons must draw their own rules about where the line is, and none of them is lesser for drawing that line in a different place than yourself or supposed "industry experts".

That being said, I absolutely agree with the 4 rules as a method of teaching the fundamentals of safe firearms handling. Fundamentals are ALWAYS taught at a basic level, with no exceptions, and to be used at all times. It is only later, when the fundamentals are a habit that finer details can be taught, and sometimes those details, in certain circumstances, can override the fundamentals.

A LOT of the people that claim that the rules are hard rules with no exceptions fit into a few categories. #1 They are instructors that typically come in contact with beginners, they absolutely must teach safety at a very fundamental level to ensure the safety of everybody and because they don't know the skill of the people they are teaching, they MUST teach the rules as HARD rules. There is one instructor that took part in the previous "disagreement" about this that even said, he teaches the 4 rules in his classes as hard rules, but acknowledged that outside of class there were some permissible exceptions. #2 People that only have a fundamental understanding of the mechanics of firearms and firearm safety and have not yet found a need to make exceptions to the rules. Even though they may not be beginners, they haven't delved deep enough into the firearms world to see clearly the need for some limited exceptions. #3 Those that know there are common sense exceptions but refuse to acknowledge them because they would be "one of those people" that don't believe in the 4 HARD rules...