Why do "smart" people point guns at themselves?

[cook5oh]

I really didn't want to get into this debate, but I will say for someone new to firearms those are definitely "hard rules" and should be taught and followed with no exception. As for someone that has worked in both the Military and LE fields and been an instructor, I would say it's impractical to think you could always follow these rules 100 percent. I definitely always check and know when a weapon is loaded or unloaded. If the gun is unloaded it wouldn't bother me if I flagged my own hand. I'm confident and competent enough in my firearms handling to know how to properly check and clear a weapon.

As for the guy in the picture, IDK. No way to tell if weapon is loaded, or if he even checked it. Seeing the Punisher logo on the backplate doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence.

 

[bwframe]

 

[bwframe]

... 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...

...I will say for someone new to firearms those are definitely "hard rules" and should be taught and followed with no exception...
...If the gun is unloaded it wouldn't bother me if I flagged my own hand. I'm confident and competent enough in my firearms handling to know how to properly check and clear a weapon...

How does one determine when they are seasoned at firearms handling well enough and competent to start pointing their guns at themselves and others?

 

[ATM]

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?

Well, this is a discussion of gun handling and more specifically, people who choose to ignore safe gun handling practices when they believe a gun is unloaded.
Spontaneous discharge of unhandled guns is hardly the same risk as negligent handling, those topics are barely even related. Not sure why you believe it would be prudent to lump them together.

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.

Making reasoned exceptions is everyone's choice, but that's not the common problem we see over and over. The most common problem is the unnecessary and unreasoned dismissal of safe gun handling practices for guns believed to be unloaded. Why handle guns unsafely when circumstances do not require an exception?

But where do you draw the line?

Certainly not at loaded status - people are very commonly mistaken about that. Make sure there is a need to point the muzzle in an unsafe direction before casually doing so. Make sure there is a need to engage the trigger before casually doing so. Make sure there is a need to discount the target and bullet path before casually doing so. Be prepared to explain why you made those choices as "don't worry, it's not loaded" simply doesn't cut it in my book.

I appreciate your further comments about teaching new folks proper fundamentals. I'd go a step further and explain that unloaded status alone is not a sufficient reason to dismiss those fundamental safe gun handling practices.

 

[CountryBoy19]

How does one determine when they are seasoned at firearms handling well enough and competent to start pointing their guns at themselves and others?

If you would read it all and not cherry-pick you would see what I wrote above (now quoted below for your convenient review)

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.

There is no defined line in the sand. Your line is different from my line and they are all different from the guy in the video. Your belittling of people that have drawn the line differently than you is pure arrogance IMHO.

But just to appease your quest, you are seasoned enough when you have properly accounted for and mitigated the risks involved if it ever arises that you need to point a firearm at a human. If you don't know anything about risk assessment, hazard analysis, or risk mitigation you probably shouldn't be doing it...

Well, this is a discussion of gun handling and more specifically, people who choose to ignore safe gun handling practices when they believe a gun is unloaded.
Spontaneous discharge of unhandled guns is hardly the same risk as negligent handling, those topics are barely even related. Not sure why you believe it would be prudent to lump them together.

You're right, it's a discussion of gun handling, but if you're going to make exceptions to the rules, say, maybe an exception that the rules ONLY APPLY when being handled (just as your previous quote of the "rules" said) then clearly it's ok to make some exceptions no? You're right that negligent handling is magnitudes more risky than spontaneous discharge of unhandled guns, as a matter of fact, they aren't even on the same page. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the person that wrote the rule you quoted was making an exception for one and not the other based upon his own opinions formed around risk level associated with each. Would you argue that both scenarios involve risk? So obviously there is a line drawn somewhere along the paradigm of "risk level". It's clear that the person that wrote that rule believe that line lies somewhere above unhandled guns, but below "empty" guns. Which is actually a good place to put the line for fundamental purposes.

Making reasoned exceptions is everyone's choice, but that's not the common problem we see over and over. The most common problem is the unnecessary and unreasoned dismissal of safe gun handling practices for guns believed to be unloaded. Why handle guns unsafely when circumstances do not require an exception?

There is NO reason to handle them unsafely when circumstances don't require them to be. Yet at the same time, as a simple factor of risk mitigation, there are different levels of "unsafe" handling. We take a risk just walking into a room with a gun, we take a risk pointing it at ourselves or others. What is the difference? They both entail risk, one just entails much more risk. However, if that risk is properly mitigated with controls and procedures, the risk of pointing a gun at another person or yourself can be reduced to the same level of risk that involves walking in a room with a gun sitting on the table (IE, negligible risk). In that case there is no difference.

Certainly not at loaded status - people are very commonly mistaken about that. Make sure there is a need to point the muzzle in an unsafe direction before casually doing so. Make sure there is a need to engage the trigger before casually doing so. Make sure there is a need to discount the target and bullet path before casually doing so. Be prepared to explain why you made those choices as "don't worry, it's not loaded" simply doesn't cut it in my book.

"Don't worry, it's not loaded" shouldn't cut it in ANYBODY's book. But that doesn't mean that a gun that has been verified as unloaded or even made inoperable, cannot be pointed at something/somebody. Maybe I'm a bit jaded by the previous thread with bwframe wherein he argued to the death that there was absolutely no reason nor was there EVER a situation where it was safe to EVER have a weapon pointed at a human being. I countered with several very useful situations, under very controlled circumstances, with several layers of risk mitigation involved, and that wasn't good enough for him...

I appreciate your further comments about teaching new folks proper fundamentals. I'd go a step further and explain that unloaded status alone is not a sufficient reason to dismiss those fundamental safe gun handling practices.

I don't think this thread is about teaching folks proper fundamentals. Nobody is disagreeing on the fundamentals. I agree whole-heartedly that the 4 rules, as fundamentals should be taught as HARD RULES. I think the point is that some people in their 50's that have supposedly been handling guns all their lives, cannot see any possible reason that it would ever be a low-risk situation to have a gun pointed at yourself or others.

And just because you're making an exception to 1 rule doesn't mean all get excepted. So no, loaded status isn't the only qualifier, although it would be most commonly used because a gun that has been unloaded and verified by a 3rd party in the presence of all involved parties and then every other rule followed during the "pointing" of it, would be considered a VERY negligible risk... Yet a gun that has been "unloaded" by Joe, then handed to Zeek who didn't verify it was unloaded before pointing at Bob would be a rather risky situation.

Anybody want to start doing some risk assessment charts?

 

[cook5oh]

If you would read it all and not cherry-pick you would see what I wrote above (now quoted below for your convenient review)


There is no defined line in the sand. Your line is different from my line and they are all different from the guy in the video. Your belittling of people that have drawn the line differently than you is pure arrogance IMHO.

But just to appease your quest, you are seasoned enough when you have properly accounted for and mitigated the risks involved if it ever arises that you need to point a firearm at a human. If you don't know anything about risk assessment, hazard analysis, or risk mitigation you probably shouldn't be doing it...


You're right, it's a discussion of gun handling, but if you're going to make exceptions to the rules, say, maybe an exception that the rules ONLY APPLY when being handled (just as your previous quote of the "rules" said) then clearly it's ok to make some exceptions no? You're right that negligent handling is magnitudes more risky than spontaneous discharge of unhandled guns, as a matter of fact, they aren't even on the same page. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the person that wrote the rule you quoted was making an exception for one and not the other based upon his own opinions formed around risk level associated with each. Would you argue that both scenarios involve risk? So obviously there is a line drawn somewhere along the paradigm of "risk level". It's clear that the person that wrote that rule believe that line lies somewhere above unhandled guns, but below "empty" guns. Which is actually a good place to put the line for fundamental purposes.


There is NO reason to handle them unsafely when circumstances don't require them to be. Yet at the same time, as a simple factor of risk mitigation, there are different levels of "unsafe" handling. We take a risk just walking into a room with a gun, we take a risk pointing it at ourselves or others. What is the difference? They both entail risk, one just entails much more risk. However, if that risk is properly mitigated with controls and procedures, the risk of pointing a gun at another person or yourself can be reduced to the same level of risk that involves walking in a room with a gun sitting on the table (IE, negligible risk). In that case there is no difference.


"Don't worry, it's not loaded" shouldn't cut it in ANYBODY's book. But that doesn't mean that a gun that has been verified as unloaded or even made inoperable, cannot be pointed at something/somebody. Maybe I'm a bit jaded by the previous thread with bwframe wherein he argued to the death that there was absolutely no reason nor was there EVER a situation where it was safe to EVER have a weapon pointed at a human being. I countered with several very useful situations, under very controlled circumstances, with several layers of risk mitigation involved, and that wasn't good enough for him...



I don't think this thread is about teaching folks proper fundamentals. Nobody is disagreeing on the fundamentals. I agree whole-heartedly that the 4 rules, as fundamentals should be taught as HARD RULES. I think the point is that some people in their 50's that have supposedly been handling guns all their lives, cannot see any possible reason that it would ever be a low-risk situation to have a gun pointed at yourself or others.

And just because you're making an exception to 1 rule doesn't mean all get excepted. So no, loaded status isn't the only qualifier, although it would be most commonly used because a gun that has been unloaded and verified by a 3rd party in the presence of all involved parties and then every other rule followed during the "pointing" of it, would be considered a VERY negligible risk... Yet a gun that has been "unloaded" by Joe, then handed to Zeek who didn't verify it was unloaded before pointing at Bob would be a rather risky situation.

Anybody want to start doing some risk assessment charts?

QFT

No need for me to even discuss further.

 

[indiucky]

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

Mark Twain had an opinion...

"Don't meddle with old unloaded firearms. They are the most deadly and unerring things that have ever been created by man. You don't have to take any pains at all with them; you don't have to have a rest, you don't have to have any sights on the gun, you don't have to take aim, even. No, you just pick out a relative and bang away, and you are sure to get him. A youth who can't hit a cathedral at thirty yards with a Gatling gun in three-quarters of an hour, can take up an old empty musket and bag his mother every time at a hundred. Think what Waterloo would have been if one of the armies had been boys armed with old rusty muskets supposed not to be loaded, and the other army had been composed of their female relations. The very thought of it makes me shudder."
- Advice to Youth speech, 4/15/1882

 

[ATM]

CountryBoy19,

Obviously we are arguing different points in this thread and not directly.

I would not be inclined to propose that safe gun handling rules be applied to guns which are not being handled. There are other good practices which would apply to the storage of guns, limiting access, ensuring drop-safe design, holster design, etc., but these particular rules weren't crafted to apply beyond handling.

Your primary contention seems to be that reasons may exist to violate these safe gun handling rules. My primary contention is that loaded/unloaded status should not qualify as that reason. Stated differently: Unloading is certainly a primary means of mitigating the risk associated with violating these rules, however, mitigation efforts are never actually reasons to dispense with safe gun handling practices.

I advocate getting rid of "rule" #1 because it is nonsense. Some guns are loaded, some are not. It is detrimental to leave it associated with gun handling because too many people consider loaded/unloaded status a reason in and of itself to handle guns safely/unsafely - it just isn't.

 

[JettaKnight]

"Don't worry, it's not loaded"

Say those words around me and get a kick in the jimmy.


I don't like the first rule because, (a) it's illogical and (b) when proven false it's used as an excuse from the other rules.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Your primary contention seems to be that reasons may exist to violate these safe gun handling rules. My primary contention is that loaded/unloaded status should not qualify as that reason. Stated differently: Unloading is certainly a primary means of mitigating the risk associated with violating these rules, however, mitigation efforts are never actually reasons to dispense with safe gun handling practices.

You know that moment when the light-bulb flickers on and it clicks? I just had that moment with what you're trying to say...

I now understand the point you're making... and I agree COMPLETELY...

 

[snowwalker]

IF you followed rule number 1 exactly, you could never clean your gun or dry fire practice your gun. You also could not walk into any gun shop without breaking rule number 2 or be above a basement or above the ground floor. How do you check the timing on a revolver, I would say you can't do that either? You can't check the inside of the barrel of a gun since it would not be possible. When did critical thinking or common sense become a thing of the past?

 

[CountryBoy19]

IF you followed rule number 1 exactly, you could never clean your gun or dry fire practice your gun. You also could not walk into any gun shop without breaking rule number 2 or be above a basement or above the ground floor. How do you check the timing on a revolver, I would say you can't do that either? You can't check the inside of the barrel of a gun since it would not be possible. When did critical thinking or common sense become a thing of the past?

Exactly right!!

 

[bwframe]

So, along with it being OK to point your guns at yourself, who else is it OK to point your guns at? Wife, kids, parents, friends, gun store guy, next shooter down the line at the range?

(Of course, only after reaching a varying self-proclaimed level of competency.)

 

[snowwalker]

bw, what's your point and what is wrong with my post? I really believe the machines are making some of us stupid where there is an absence of clear thinking. For you to make that leap, well............you don't know or lie to yourself. My post shows what we as gun owners do on a regular basis unless you're incompetent, and if so you should not own a gun!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IF you followed rule number 1 exactly, you could never clean your gun or dry fire practice your gun.

Because the Four Rules provide the exception that unless the gun is in your hands and you see and touch that it is unloaded. The other 3 still apply.

be above a basement or above the ground floor.

Because no guns are being handled. If guns are being handled in the basement use a barrel and not your upstairs neighbors.

You can't check the inside of the barrel of a gun since it would not be possible.

Unload said gun, look and touch, then inspect your barrel as you need.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I just pull the trigger to verify it's unloaded.

 

[bwframe]

IF you followed rule number 1 exactly, you could never clean your gun or dry fire practice your gun. You also could not walk into any gun shop without breaking rule number 2 or be above a basement or above the ground floor. How do you check the timing on a revolver, I would say you can't do that either? You can't check the inside of the barrel of a gun since it would not be possible. When did critical thinking or common sense become a thing of the past?

You are right. That's just silly.

Holstered, cased and disassembled guns don't apply. Within reason, you can do whatever you want under those conditions. It'd still be smart to be muzzle conscious around others who may not be clear that you are handling only gun parts. It is rude and often against the rules at most ranges to be handling guns in ANY condition when folks are downrange.

The Four Rules always apply when you are handling the gun assembled in a shooting condition.

Dry fire should be done in an area where an actual shot could fire without harm.

You are also correct in that common sense is a fading thing.

 

[snowwalker]

I'm glad to see that my post at #51 stands when using common sense or critical thinking, there is removal of absolute rules as at times they are not possible to follow the rules as absolutes.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Holstered, cased and disassembled guns don't apply. Within reason, you can do whatever you want under those conditions.

What is "holstered", "cased", and "disassembled" though? Where do you draw the line on those?

What about an AOW wallet holster that still permits the gun to fire when holstered? Does that fit the guidelines of your exceptions to handle guns differently?

"Cased" is also pretty subjective...

But the real zinger is "disassembled". At what point in the disassembly of a firearm is it "disassembled enough" to be safe?

You see, it still appears that you're drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based upon YOUR opinions. Yet you belittle those that feel the line is in a different place than yours... I find this somewhat laughable... it's playing out exactly the same way as the last time...

The Four Rules always apply when you are handling the gun assembled in a shooting condition.

What is "shooting condition"? I need this to be defined properly so I can handle my guns safely... because clearly nobody else can possibly handle firearms safely without following your arbitrary lines in the sand. I just need to be sure I understand where your particular line is so I don't cross it...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To answer the OP's question, people point guns at themselves because it is the hip, cool thing to do (they see it in the gun rags or especially in the movies [where most of the gun knowledge in the gun culture comes from]) and they do not know what it is like to be shot.

When I teach, the class will all have a reaction to the idea of being cut with a knife. I was waiting in a classroom before my portion of the seminar was to begin. I took out a orange to eat before going on. To cut it open I produced my pocket knife and snapped it open.

At the sound of the knife being opened, the entire class spun around in their chairs to look at me. Why? Because everyone knows what it is like to be cut with a knife, even if it is an accidental stroke in the kitchen while cutting a bagel in half.

Very few know the pain and damage that a gun can produce, thus they have no problems pointing them at themselves, even if they are "smart".