Yes, There are 4 Rules: Man Charged for Involuntary Manslaughter

[2in1evtime]

I just watched that video and I am VERY confused. What I think I see here is guy removes mag, racks slide twice, begins to give it back and in the process points it at the wall and pulls the trigger, says "Here you go, now it's unloaded." Anyone else agree? Or am I missing something?

​Yes that is the exact thing i am seeing, my guess is someone loaded it after that part of the video

 

[JettaKnight]

Such a steep price to pay for immature behavior. If the person who wandered off to retrieve the gun had minded his own business or if the owner had taken the gun and put it away rather than handing it back after he cleared it then this could have been prevented.

FIFY. Don't put quotes around "cleared". He did it right (well, I'd use a sand barrel). Sure I did, but that's because of grammar usage. There should be no irony, slang, special connotation or emphasis in your sentence. (Yes, I am a member of the Grammar Police)

Removed magazine - check.
Cycled slide several times - check.
Visually inspected it - check.
Dry fired in safe(ish) direction - check.


Gun was unloaded. His mindset (due to lack of training) was, "loaded guns are bad, mkay." So once it was unloaded it wasn't bad - it was inert. (What Mr. Freeman would call "Beard Logic")

This is why I'm a three rules supporter - there's nothing in those rules about loaded state, therefore, there's no way to create a mindset of dangerous versus inert. It's just plain and simple - ALWAYS follow these three simple rules*.


I'd like to see the rest of the video. Was the gun reloaded at some point? I'll go out on a limb and say yes it was.




* Sure, you will break one of them for a distinct and special purpose on occasions, e.g. dry fire drills. However, you have a very good reason and it's under a very controlled situation.

 

[HoughMade]

I suppose this sort of thing is why my M&P has this ugly warning on it:

Not that a warning would have prevented this.

 

[migunner]

Feel free to read through the 47 pages of the thread I started in which I debated the virtues of the 4 rule system. I get where you're coming from, I'm just migrating to a different set of core beliefs in regard to gun safety for the masses. It's all good.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...9-rule-number-one-all-guns-always-loaded.html

Indeed they are !

 

[2A_Tom]

I just watched that video and I am VERY confused. What I think I see here is guy removes mag, racks slide twice, begins to give it back and in the process points it at the wall and pulls the trigger, says "Here you go, now it's unloaded." Anyone else agree? Or am I missing something?

I can not tell the layout of the room, but after that pistol was cleared, it disappeared stage left and then it seems another one appeared from stage right. That is the one last stuck in the guy's mouth.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In before Kirk.

This is what scares people in the middle. Gun owners acting like pudknockers around guns.

The lack of discipline terrifies those who are not rabidly against guns as say the ideological Left, but the fence sitters see moronic behavior as is displayed by the video and read that gun owners say "it's ok to point guns at people" and flinch.

Those who do not control themselves will be controlled by others.

I don't want society making rules based on those undisciplined monkeys. All the more reason to promote responsible gun handling. I propose tax credits (above the line deductions) for those enrolled in firearms training and the attendant expenses.

 

[JettaKnight]

All apologies aside I have but one question:


who has sammiches?

Go make some for us, I'll handle it while you're gone.

Indeed they are !

Indeed what are what?

Are you trying to repeat the old saw that, "guns are always loaded"? That's preposterous. The mere fact that you've purchased ammunition in your lifetime invalidates that claim. Therefore, I can only conclude that you wish to perpetuate this foolish notion that convincing yourself that the lie is real will lead to safer gun handling.

Well, here we have a clear case (with video!) that it does not, and the consequences are tragic.

Here are a group of induhviduals who may have been exposed to the classic four rules of gun handling and were told, "guns are always loaded". Well, you can watch the video - this man was able to knock down that facade with such ease. In mere seconds he was able to prove you wrong - he unloaded the gun. And with that, your whole rule system for safe gun handling was dismantled. Guns aren't always loaded - the first rule is false. This rule which it's ardent followers profess is the foundation was broken. And if the foundation is cracked, then the subsequent rules which now teeter upon this foundation can't be trusted.

Far better would it be to offer up solid rules that don't rely on mental gymnastics and clever ruses. Rules that form a sturdy triangle of practicality rather than a swaying column of chicanery.

The word "loaded" must be purged from our rules. No longer should our gun handling include it in consideration.

Loaded? Unloaded? Doesn't matter. Do not pretend it's something it's not; just know it is a gun and therefore always dangerous.

 

[KMaC]

Maybe we can talk all night
But that ain't getting us nowhere
I told you everything Col. Cooper said
There's nothing left inside of here
And ATM can debate all night
But that'll never change the way I feel...
...don't be tough [...don't be tough ]
'Cause three out of four ain't enough

-- My most sincere apologies to Mr Marvin Lee Aday

That settles it. I'm having meatloaf tonight.

 

[actaeon277]

Well.. he seems "sorry". So, what the hell. Let the guy go.

NOT!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Treat every firearm as if it were loaded:

Why? Firearms injuries are just statistical noise. I read that on INGO somewhere... Now we want to charge people over statistical noise? Or argue semantics over what's a total non-issue?

 

[bwframe]

 

[oldpink]

Even leaving out the failure to follow basic rules of safe gun-handling, the fact that the perp was liquored up should go in another category of stupid.
If I'm carrying, I'm not touching even a drop.
It's a shame that someone was killed as a result of this asshat, while also giving the MDA asswipes yet another talking point.

 

[Gluemanz28]

I want to know how they got a clip to insert into a semi auto pistol.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I want to know how they got a clip to insert into a semi auto pistol.

In through the top like every other clip loaded semi-auto.

 

[chipbennett]

Why? Firearms injuries are just statistical noise. I read that on INGO somewhere... Now we want to charge people over statistical noise? Or argue semantics over what's a total non-issue?

Complete non sequitur. No amount of training could have fixed the stupid inherent in this incident.

 

[chipbennett]

Are you trying to repeat the old saw that, "guns are always loaded"? That's preposterous. The mere fact that you've purchased ammunition in your lifetime invalidates that claim. Therefore, I can only conclude that you wish to perpetuate this foolish notion that convincing yourself that the lie is real will lead to safer gun handling.

...

The word "loaded" must be purged from our rules. No longer should our gun handling include it in consideration.

Loaded? Unloaded? Doesn't matter. Do not pretend it's something it's not; just know it is a gun and therefore always dangerous.

I suppose people who wrongly insist that Rule #1 is a literal rule are always going to be confused. Rule #1 is a mindset rule.

In fact, Three Rules proponents must implicitly accept Rule #1, in order for their Three Rules to suffice. After all, if a firearm is unloaded, why would the Three Rules matter?

 

[ATM]

*Gunsite rules*

You've already lost, B, that way leads to tragedy and death. It sets the next generation up with a mindset to fail.

Time to really defend it, your potshots and evasion on this grave matter are neither funny nor effective.

If you had anything to add, you would have done it already in that other thread. You don't, do you?

Didn't think so. Take care, buddy.

 

[ATM]

I suppose people who wrongly insist that Rule #1 is a literal rule are always going to be confused. Rule #1 is a mindset rule.

In fact, Three Rules proponents must implicitly accept Rule #1, in order for their Three Rules to suffice. After all, if a firearm is unloaded, why would the Three Rules matter?

This has been done. If you have sammiches, I'll do it again.

 

[308jake]

You've already lost, B, that way leads to tragedy and death. It sets the next generation up with a mindset to fail.

Time to really defend it, your potshots and evasion on this grave matter are neither funny nor effective.

If you had anything to add, you would have done it already in that other thread. You don't, do you?

Didn't think so. Take care, buddy.

Oh snap. Well at least there wasn't an eye roll.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Complete non sequitur. No amount of training could have fixed the stupid inherent in this incident.

Yes: in absolute terms of ascribing firearms as "dangerous", they are not. Some 15K accidental firearm injuries in a total of 30MM accidental injuries among a population of 300MM (of whom 100MM are firearm owners), is insignificant.

If you have numbers to differentiate between accidents involving the trained and the untrained, please present them, and show that there is statistical significance in the difference in the rate of accidents involving those two cohorts. Until then, what *you* are presenting is some hybrid of a hunch and a philosophy, and not "evidence".

I don't say that to be snarky. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that failing to get firearms training is "dangerous". I'm presenting numbers that merely demonstrate the landscape/context of any evidence you might find: firearms *overall* are not "dangerous", so it will be extremely difficult to justify a subset of the group subject to accidental firearm injury as being more "dangerous".

CDC accidental injury statistics:

FastStats - Injuries

And, as I originally stated: the entire class of firearm-related injuries is statistical noise. There is no use in breaking down the class further.

Now you want to argue semantics of gun safety and "mindset" after repeated insistence guns aren't dangerous and they so rarely injure someone that if training lowers the numbers or not isn't even worth looking in to? Do you actually have a position, or is this just debate club?