We're now at 32 pages and one has shown a clear, logical reason that Rule #1 is needed in addition to Rules 2-4.
Telling, don't you think?
oops, a freudian slip perhaps?
We're now at 32 pages and one has shown a clear, logical reason that Rule #1 is needed in addition to Rules 2-4.
Telling, don't you think?
You tell me. Again, if they switch, why will you follow? (you stated you would) Because they saw their error and you agree, or because you want to be on the same page.
"This is the way we've always done it" is hardly the best reason for doing just about anything. The question as to whether any particular new idea is actually better is absolutely necessary, but neither popularity nor longevity can really answer the question of "better".
To get to "better", I think you have to start with "what is the primary cause of NDs today?" Seems that "I thought it wasn't loaded" is mentioned in nearly every tragic ND story I read. What would happen if you taught a method that said it doesn't matter in the LEAST whether the gun is loaded, you still ALWAYS follow these rules. ALWAYS.
But I thought it was... NO. I don't give a flying **** whether you thought it was loaded or not, just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I do believe it's harmful, hence my railing against it. It is not harmful to everyone, but likely many. Many is enough. A few would be enough. How about one? Yeah, the individual matters.
And, it doesn't keep anyone safe, the steps which follow do. There are many ways to prove it, many evidences which are not the data you suggest. If these aren't satisfactory for you, I'm not terribly worried. If you're interested in researching numbers and sorting out all the variables which would impact those numbers, shoring them up against attempted reproof from the faithful adherents, knock yourself out.
Your squeals haven't been the most delightful of the bunch, but better than average for one who claims to not even care.
I'm writing more for the readers than the respondents. It is generally how I accomplish things. Anyone who gets caught up in responding only to me and forgets about the larger group of readers will tend to lose ground in the larger battle.
I do think it's both unnecessary and harmful.
Since I haven't yet convinced you, I appreciate that you and some others have taken more of a 'so what?' stance rather than a defensive stance. I really wish the defensive few would actually point out errors or problems with what I say, make a logical defense for teaching people that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED rather than taking refutation of that 'rule' as a personal slight, selectively quoting their responses while evading the real gist of the discussion.
I don't care what they've adopted so long as they handle guns safely, but there are better and worse ways to instruct the next generation and that's worth discussing. I'm no fan of rote regurgitation for its own sake. Good and reasonable ideas can withstand quite a bit of directed scrutiny.
"This is the way we've always done it" is hardly the best reason for doing just about anything. The question as to whether any particular new idea is actually better is absolutely necessary, but neither popularity nor longevity can really answer the question of "better".
To get to "better", I think you have to start with "what is the primary cause of NDs today?" Seems that "I thought it wasn't loaded" is mentioned in nearly every tragic ND story I read. What would happen if you taught a method that said it doesn't matter in the LEAST whether the gun is loaded, you still ALWAYS follow these rules. ALWAYS.
What would happen if you taught a method wherein the first rule (of four) required you to NEVER assume any weapon that had been, however briefly, out of your control was NOT LOADED. And just as in the system you advocate, the other three rules (muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, target discipline) are also being followed rigorously at the same time. You wind up in exactly the same place, where " I didn't know it was loaded " is simply an excuse for carelessness/negligence.
But I thought it was... NO. I don't give a flying **** whether you thought it was loaded or not, just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME.
What would happen if you taught a method wherein the first rule (of four) required you to NEVER assume any weapon that had been, however briefly, out of your control was NOT LOADED. And just as in the system you advocate, the other three rules(muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, target discipline) are also being followed rigorously at the same time. You wind up in exactly the same place, where " I didn't know it was loaded " is simply an excuse for carelessness/negligence.
iCP, I've only come back to your post because ATM thinks it isn't being given enough attention (#323)
Allowing four rules adherents the same stipulation as in your close " ... just follow these rules EVERY SINGLE TIME." I do not see a case being made that 3 is better than 4, only that if everyone followed all the rules all the time human-damaging NDs would be a thing of the past
So the argument turns on personal preference rather than any evidence of the superiority of one over the other. Carry on (and we will, too)
...
So the argument turns on personal preference rather than any evidence of the superiority of one over the other. Carry on (and we will, too)
First time posting from phone so plz bear with me
You seem to have the order of operations reversed. You are arguing in favor of subtracting a rule from the four that have been happily promoting firearm safety for generations. Is not it incumbent on you to prove your deletion from a working system still provides the same ( or better ) outcome?
And, as in your close, if you agree with me that keeping the original four rules doesnt change the outcome, why would I need follow-up support in light of that agreement. Follow ALL the rules of whatever system you prefer ALL the time and life will be golden
Rule #1 doesn't fit the definition of a "Rule".
As a "statement" or "mindset", it is untrue.
There is a reason almost every teaching organization in the world has modified it.
Allahu akbar!
Allahu akbar!
Just checking in to see if my mindset has been changed yet.....
You might take a while.
Do let us know.
Old dog new tricks..............
No, I already subtracted it many years ago when I realized it was unnecessary and unhelpful. I've recently been considering in greater depth the harm it may do, but that's argument #2 so I'll save that for later.
I can tell you personally, through at least several hundred students ranging in experience from zero to distinguished riflemen and firearms instructors far more accomplished than I, not a single issue with its omission. Not one. You see, the part of the system that is necessary, helpful and instructive is still there.
I also never hear any suggestion that its omission from the safe gun handling rules of that huge firearm training organization, the NRA, has any detrimental or even mildly negative effect. Again, because the important components are still right there.
I'm giving you the opportunity to show me what safe gun handling component we're robbing all these students of by not teaching ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. If it is necessary or helpful to handle guns safely, I really want to know how. Then I can weigh that against the damage I believe it does and come to my own conclusion if it's worth it to teach.
I believe that in some cases "traditional rule#1" can negatively impact the outcome, but that is argument #2 and I'd rather tackle this easy one first. So at least for now, my request for any follow-up support to add an unnecessary and unhelpful 4th rule to 3 which are sufficient is a matter of precision and efficiency. I mean, if we add a 4th without good reason, why not a 5th? Why not add everyone's favorite good gun idea to the mix?
My answer: because they would dilute and detract from that which is critical by mixing in that which is secondary or worse, unrelated to safe gun handling at all.
So, if you have any reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 rules we agree are sufficient for safe gun handling, I really do want to hear it.
This isn't a valid argument because the truth value of the argument doesn't affect the outcome. Whether it is stated with a concrete or abstract action or prohibition doesn't affect its suitability for teaching gun safety. I've never encountered anyone who doesn't understand the concept and implied meaning. I've never encountered anyone who takes it literally. People get what you mean when you say it.(Original) Rule #1 doesn't fit the definition of a "Rule".
As a "statement" or "mindset", it is untrue.
There is a reason almost every teaching organization in the world has modified it.
The burden of proof rests upon the 3 rule advocates to provide a compelling argument to remove the 1st rule. That requires empirical evidence, peer reviewed data, much more than the easily refuted anecdotal evidence that has been presented.
To summarize,
There is no fact based, evidence driven correlation between Rule #1 and ND. Nothing
Not one single entity has been shown to have dropped the 4 rules in favor of the NRA method. Not the Marine Corps, Not the Army, Not the Navy, no one, (as of yet, anyone willing to provide a single credible entity?)
Not one single example has been provided of a ND when a person is using the 4 rules, ever.
There is not one single shred of fact based, empirical evidence that the NRA 3 rule method is safer than the traditional 4 rules of gun safety.
There simply is no compelling evidence, just anecdotal conjecture which is easily dismissed.