Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[ATM]

I already made it clear, thank you.

Yes, your lack of a proposed solution or correction leads me to believe that you are unable to identify a problem with my gun handling (or the instruction of such) which would require either.

I am not personally vested in any particular set of rules, I use and instruct others to follow that which most succinctly, precisely and effectively promotes safe gun handling.

My golden rule is called #1 by the NRA, #2 by Cooper.

My second is called #2 by the NRA, #3 by Cooper.

Everything else is just adding to or detracting from those fixtures of safe gun handling.

 

[bwframe]

...I am not personally vested in any particular set of rules, I use and instruct others to follow that which most succinctly, precisely and effectively promotes safe gun handling.

My golden rule is called #1 by the NRA, #2 by Cooper.

My second is called #2 by the NRA, #3 by Cooper.

Everything else is just adding to or detracting from those fixtures of safe gun handling.

Good luck to you and those you instruct.

 

[oldpink]

Going to support the whole point that #1 is a mindset thing, I'll just say that I always use it as the primary guiding principle whenever handling any gun, or when instructing someone else in handling a gun.
The muzzle is always scrupulously pointed in a direction where bodily harm to someone else is impossible, the trigger is avoided, the chamber is checked and left open, all parts of the other rules, but it's still a mindset thing, i.e. here is a gun that I must assume is loaded before I even touch it, therefore I will not veer from treating it as such.
I've yet to have an instance of a negligent/accidental discharge when following this philosophy.
Ditto for all the people who took part in the scores of times that we did gun shoots while I was in the Navy, with me both as a participant and instructor.
Conversely, the six o'clock news is often peppered with examples of people who scoffed at said philosophy.
It's just beyond me why encouraging people to maintain such a simple and concise mindset that makes safe gun handling instinctive could possibly be ridiculed; but then, some people can't handle not being the smartest kid in any room they're in.

 

[ATM]

...It's just beyond me why encouraging people to maintain such a simple and concise mindset that makes safe gun handling instinctive could possibly be ridiculed; but then, some people can't handle not being the smartest kid in any room they're in.

Here, I'll show you how to make it more simple and concise:

...here is a gun [STRIKE]that I must assume is loaded before I even touch it, therefore[/STRIKE] I will not veer from treating it as such.

Go ahead and ridicule me for that if you like, just know that you are the one who favors adding the distinction of treating loaded guns differently than unloaded guns.

Please do me the service of specifically pointing out the problem with my truncated example, rather than simply dismissing me as a non-adherent of a mantra you happen to favor.

 

[oldpink]

Here, I'll show you how to make it more simple and concise:



Go ahead and ridicule me for that if you like, just know that you are the one who favors adding the distinction of treating loaded guns differently than unloaded guns.

Please do me the service of specifically pointing out the problem with my truncated example, rather than simply dismissing me as a non-adherent of a mantra you happen to favor.

Good lord.
Did it ever occur to you that reinforcing the idea to treat all guns as loaded was a response to people whose famous last words were "Don't worry. It's not loaded?"
I give you the late Terry Kath, guitarist and singer for the band Chicago.

 

[ATM]

Good lord.
Did it ever occur to you that reinforcing the idea to treat all guns as loaded was a response to people whose famous last words were "Don't worry. It's not loaded?"
I give you the late Terry Kath, guitarist and singer for the band Chicago.

Sure, I just consider that a very poor response.

A better response would be, "I don't care if it IS unloaded, IT'S STILL A GUN! HANDLE IT LIKE ONE!"

Even better, instill that mindset in people while they're still alive and able to learn how guns should be handled.

It should not be this difficult to point out my errors on this subject.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have to wonder as I think about this if, though it is not presented as such, Cooper's Rule #1 is in fact the mindset and his #2, 3, and 4 are the method by which the mindset is practiced.

That is, (because) all guns are always loaded, never point at anything you don't want to destroy, keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target, and know your target and what's behind your target.

Again, I know it's not stated that way. I'll further acknowledge that once it is proven to not be, if that's the reason you do the other (safe) things, you lose the reason to do them.

Jeff Cooper was a wise man. He was not infallible.
Our Founders were wise men. They were not infallible. For reference, check out the 27th Amendment for its date of introduction and date of passage. Interesting story behind that.
If something they drafted missed notice for that long and was only discovered by a law student, I can easily believe that even a luminary such as Col. Cooper could have an error pointed out by a logical, critical thinker who examines the facts and doesn't mind his extra-large spoon being turned brown from time to time.

(Just in case the above reference is not clear, ATM is a friend and my reference to him in such a manner is meant with humor but also with respect. He has taken an unpopular opinion here, cited his reasons for disagreement, and comported himself with civility and a level of respect such that he would have reason to expect in return. He has not fully convinced me, but I am far more inclined to give his opinions a fair hearing than I am those of a hypothetical person who might arise and with snark and vitriol, denigrate any position other than his own. I am referencing no one in particular with that last comment, only illustrating the opposite end of the spectrum from his actions in this thread.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[oldpink]

I have to wonder as I think about this if, though it is not presented as such, Cooper's Rule #1 is in fact the mindset and his #2, 3, and 4 are the method by which the mindset is practiced.
[...]Blessings,
Bill

Give that man a ceegar!

 

[MTC]

This is as frustrating for me as the last dozen or so threads on this topic. Lost in the constant attempts to prove that ___ is somehow "wrong" from a logical or semantic standpoint is that the people whose behavior we're trying to change have no intention of following any "rules" whatsoever, whether there be 3, 4, 5 or 10. They roll their eyes at any talk of rules, and/or may pay lip service to them, but their actions prove otherwise. (In most cases, these are not "new" shooters, BTW, but those who "bin 'round gunzz awl mah lahf" <huff - sniff> "dontchoo go tellin' me 'bout no safety roolz!")

You give excuse to the gullible who believe that the rules don't apply to them or that there are no rules at all

Bolded for emphasis.

I'm not questioning anyone's safety or safe gun handling practices, I'm shredding the ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED fallacy and it's many variants, trying to find anyone able to present a cogent argument for its inclusion as a safe gun handling rule.

Since I am not very good at explaining this in typed text, I will explain this argument fully, in person, the next time we meet. These things are so much faster and easier to convey in person. It is not a matter of winning an argument or disputing your method of instruction at all. It will go a long way toward explaining why I and others will continue to [verbally] pound it into their heads.

 

[ATM]

...Since I am not very good at explaining this in typed text, I will explain this argument fully, in person, the next time we meet. These things are so much faster and easier to convey in person. It is not a matter of winning an argument or disputing your method of instruction at all. It will go a long way toward explaining why I and others will continue to [verbally] pound it into their heads.

Let's make it happen. Most others are unwilling to even make the attempt. Heck, they'll gladly give Bill a ceegar, selectively skipping rational bits like this which beg for more discussion:

...I'll further acknowledge that once it is proven to not be, if that's the reason you do the other (safe) things, you lose the reason to do them...

...but they don't want to directly discuss anything resembling a critique of the hallowed Santa Claus method of introducing people to safe gun handling with me.

Go figure. (Yeah, I know, everyone likes Bill.)

Perhaps you, me and Bill could get together for some spirited discussion over root beers sometime. No hurt feelings, I promise.

 

[jamil]

This has got to be the most silly recurring argument on INGO.

 

[MTC]

Let's make it happen. Most others are unwilling to even make the attempt. Heck, they'll gladly give Bill a ceegar, selectively skipping rational bits like this which beg for more discussion:



...but they don't want to directly discuss anything resembling a critique of the hallowed Santa Claus method of introducing people to safe gun handling with me.

Go figure. (Yeah, I know, everyone likes Bill.)

Perhaps you, me and Bill could get together for some spirited discussion over root beers sometime. No hurt feelings, I promise.

Sounds great! When I see people I've met argue online, it comes off as much more caustic and abrasive than I know them to be.

< pm inbound >

 

[ATM]

This has got to be the most silly recurring argument on INGO.

Not even close. This one is made all the more enjoyable by the small handful of fiercely devoted proponents who regularly chime in but are unwilling or unable to actually argue in favor of their devotion or against any critique.

Others at least acknowledge that there is debatable merit to the discussion.

 

[ATM]

Sounds great! When I see people I've met argue online, it comes off as much more caustic and abrasive than I know them to be.

< pm inbound >

Arguing online is a guilty pleasure for me ...that and Kung Fu.

 

[oldpink]

This has got to be the most silly recurring argument on INGO.

What do you mean argument?
[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

What do you mean silly?
[video=youtube;iV2ViNJFZC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8[/video]

 

[jamil]

Not even close. This one is made all the more enjoyable by the small handful of fiercely devoted proponents who regularly chime in but are unwilling or unable to actually argue in favor of their devotion or against any critique.

Others at least acknowledge that there is debatable merit to the discussion.

There's a third category. Those who think it's just one of those silly arguments INGO must have every time someone touches anywhere near Cooper's first rule.

Just be safe around firearms. Either set of rules followed will do that. All this back and forth about the semantics of one ****ing rule approaches pedantry. It's an argument for argument's sake. But, it is the internet.

 

[ATM]

There's a third category. Those who think it's just one of those silly arguments INGO must have every time someone touches anywhere near Cooper's first rule.

Why don't arguments constantly erupt over the others? Could it be because they're defensible?

Just safe around firearms. Either set of rules followed will do that. All this back and forth about the semantics of one ****ing rule approaches pedantry. It's an argument for argument's sake. But, it is the internet.

You didn't fare very well when you tried changing Cooper's first rule in another thread. I refuted it with more than mere semantics.

My position is that, as bad as it is, changing the wording of Cooper's first rule only tends to make it worse. Reject it and be done with this nonsense.

 

[jamil]

Why don't arguments constantly erupt over the others? Could it be because they're defensible?



You didn't fare very well when you tried changing Cooper's first rule in another thread. I refuted it with more than mere semantics.

My position is that, as bad as it is, changing the wording of Cooper's first rule only tends to make it worse. Reject it and be done with this nonsense.

Fair very well? I don't care if I modify any of the rules' wording to suit me. If you see me handling guns unsafely, you're free to tell me.

Not every letter of every safety rule must be universally accepted. The fact that we're arguing about it demonstrates that people have different opinions on it.

You care too much about **** that don't matter. That's okay, you're free to do that. And I'm free to point it out.

 

[ATM]

Fair very well? I don't care if I modify any of the rules' wording to suit me. If you see me handling guns unsafely, you're free to tell me.

If I see you making suggestions which take bad mantras and make them even more dangerous, I'm also free to tell you. I really don't care what wording suits you, but I do care what is passed on to others who don't know any better than to adopt whatever they are told or read. You put it out there so it was fair game to poke holes in for the other readers.

Not every letter of every safety rule must be universally accepted. The fact that we're arguing about it demonstrates that people have different opinions on it.

Ahh, different underlying opinions might entail more than just semantics, right? So possibly not the silliest recurring argument to be found on INGO.

You care too much about **** that don't matter. That's okay, you're free to do that. And I'm free to point it out.

If you don't care, it don't matter, right? It's not like people die due to inadequately comprehending the need or methods to handle guns safely. That's not something worthy of discussing on a gun owner's forum because we all do it however it suits us, right?

Screw the newbie who doesn't know good advice from bad, and those who teach others without having ever pondered or critically considered how or what they were taught before regurgitating it rotely on down the line.

Point it out, please, so we can get back to a topic that matters to you.

 

[MTC]

You care too much about **** that don't matter. That's okay, you're free to do that. And I'm free to point it out.

I want to meet this man, and he's right "up the hill". How do I do that?