Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[jamil]

Is that Arabic for ATM's Kung Fu is tight?

I'm not a good judge of Kung Fu. But if it looks like Jet Li, or Jackie Chan, it's at least entertaining. David Carradine, eh, back in the seventies, maybe.

 

[jamil]

You could approach it from a positive angle

...old dogs have an edge when it comes to forgetting things.



Yeah!



Oh, muh back.

I promise. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.

 

[ATM]

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.

I can't find anyone willing or able to provide a reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 which follow it and are quite sufficient by themselves.

The first doesn't exist in many organizations' safety rules. What you personally would require to remove it from a system which you adopted does not rest upon me, my burden is not to make you change but to understand why you'd insist on keeping it without some supportive reasoning.

To summarize,

There is no fact based, evidence driven correlation between Rule #1 and ND. Nothing

There is also no fact based, evidence driven correlation between teaching that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS COLT PYTHONS and ND. Nothing

Surely you wouldn't use this same reasoning to (il)logically include it with otherwise sufficient safe gun handling rules?

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?)

What about all the other organizations and individuals who never even adopted it? And why even compare with what the military adopts?

Not one single example has been provided of a ND when a person is using the 4 rules, ever.

Or 3 rules for that matter, so again, why adopt or retain the unnecessary 4th? Why not an unnecessary 5th or 6th?

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.

Yet I see plenty of admissions that it's no less safe. So why the unnecessary 4th? Why?

There simply is no compelling evidence, just anecdotal conjecture which is easily dismissed.

There's plenty of evidence that 3 is sufficient and literally none even offered that the 4th is required. If that's not compelling to you, go ahead and dismiss it.

 

[JettaKnight]

While you relegate yourself to hypotheticals and conjecture, I'm dealing with facts and data.

The United States Marine Corps teaches the 4 rules, along with other branches of the US military. I will stay in alignment with the Marine Corps, if it's good enough for Chesty Puller, it's good enough for me. Semper Fidelis.

So say you deal in facts and data, yet none has been presented here (from either side). Then you stay far away from facts and data to say, "I do it because they do it."

So I say again, Who can provide a list of credible firearm training entities that have dropped the 4 rules and migrated to the NRA 3 rule system?

Still waiting.

Appleseed is the one I have personal experience with that doesn't bother with Rule #1 nonsense.

And I'm still waiting on someone to give a me a reason that Rule #1 is a necessary addition to Rules 2-4. Heck, just make a compelling case that it enhances and doesn't detract or dilute the other rules.

 

[JettaKnight]

(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.

So you're saying Rule #1 is a logical fallacy, yet it's part of the sacred Four Rules so it has to be taught and each instructor has to modify it in such a way so that it makes sense and is helpful and not a detraction from the other rules?


If it's that much of a stumbling block for these cool kids (like Hunky McGlock) then why not leave it by the wayside?

 

[crispy]

So you're saying Rule #1 is a logical fallacy, yet it's part of the sacred Four Rules so it has to be taught and each instructor has to modify it in such a way so that it makes sense and is helpful and not a detraction from the other rules?


If it's that much of a stumbling block for these cool kids (like Hunky McGlock) then why not leave it by the wayside?

The first two things are indisputable facts.

The third statement is an observation.

Here's another observation. Most of the supporters of the "four rules" swear by Jeff Cooper's version and by way of proof, offer up examples of organizations that have modified it. No wait, that's a fact too.

 

[iChokePeople]

It would seem, to me, that every ND in which the excuse is the presumption that it wasn't loaded is an indictment of that thought process. Logically, a "3 rules" guy would never start off his ND story with that excuse, because he/she doesn't CARE whether it's loaded. No? It's only when we CARE whether the gun is loaded that we move on to the reasoning that I treated it differently BECAUSE I thought it was unloaded. That excuse says, "I know I broke one of the rules of gun handling, but I did it because I thought it was unloaded. Of COURSE I would never have pointed my gun at my child/spouse/friend if I'd known that it was LOADED..."

No? I'm a pretty simple guy, and often wrong, but that's what *I* get every time I hear/read that tired old attempt at an excuse.

Also, just an aside on the whole USMC thing, my time there made me doubt the logic behind LOTS of the things they do. That neither proves nor disproves anything about this argument, but in my world the idea that something must be right because that's the way the USMC does it is pretty amusing and makes me chuckle. As a young recruit, I sat around a white barrel at Camp Pendleton and repeatedly pulled the trigger on a rifle that was pointed more or less squarely at another recruit on the other side of the barrel. So that MUST be a good idea. One of you newer Marines, do they still do that?

 

[BugI02]

Nono, how anyone carries is another thread entirely!

Mods have a sense of humor! Who knew?

 

[Patriot]

One thing my father always taught me, when handing a firearm to another make sure the chamber is in the open locked position. Same as in the military.

That's my policy as well.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

I can't find anyone willing or able to provide a reason to add ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED to the 3 which follow it and are quite sufficient by themselves.

The Thread originated with a reason that rule #1 is important. Anecdotal evidence, but a reason never the less. Individuals count, right?

first doesn't exist in many organizations' safety rules. What you personally would require to remove it from a system which you adopted does not rest upon me, my burden is not to make you change but to understand why you'd insist on keeping it without some supportive reasoning.

Why would the US military keep it? The reason I keep it, is stated in the opening post of the thread.

is also no fact based, evidence driven correlation between teaching that ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS COLT PYTHONS and ND. Nothing

Surely you wouldn't use this same reasoning to (il)logically include it with otherwise sufficient safe gun handling rules?

Red Herring. The 3 rules advocate assertion is that rule #1 promotes a lessening of the importance of the other 3 rules. This simply cannot be proven to be factual, hence, more conjecture.

about all the other organizations and individuals who never even adopted it? And why even compare with what the military adopts?

Making the military connection reinforces the mainstream 4 rules approach to gun safety. Considering that the military has not changed their 4 rules system is yet another fact that change is not occurring on a mainstream level. This debunks the myth that 4 rule adherents are resisting "change"

3 rules for that matter, so again, why adopt or retain the unnecessary 4th? Why not an unnecessary 5th or 6th?

4 rules works for me and all major branches of the US military.

I see plenty of admissions that it's no less safe. So why the unnecessary 4th? Why?

To set a mindset that works for a great many people, including my example in the threads opening post.

plenty of evidence that 3 is sufficient and literally none even offered that the 4th is required. If that's not compelling to you, go ahead and dismiss it.

There has been a wealth of evidence provided to support the 1st rule, whether you accept it or not is solely up to you. It would be interesting to have some data on ND and the safety systems "practiced" by the offending party. I would venture to say that a great many ND are committed by NRA trained gun owners, (you do train over one MILLION people per year, it's just a matter of statistics)

Since there is no way, as of yet, to look at the data then we have to work with conjecture, opinion and anecdotal experience, one simply cannot say that the 1st rule of safety is not effective unless they concede that it's just opinion.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

It would seem, to me, that every ND in which the excuse is the presumption that it wasn't loaded is an indictment of that thought process. Logically, a "3 rules" guy would never start off his ND story with that excuse, because he/she doesn't CARE whether it's loaded. No? It's only when we CARE whether the gun is loaded that we move on to the reasoning that I treated it differently BECAUSE I thought it was unloaded. That excuse says, "I know I broke one of the rules of gun handling, but I did it because I thought it was unloaded. Of COURSE I would never have pointed my gun at my child/spouse/friend if I'd known that it was LOADED..."

No? I'm a pretty simple guy, and often wrong, but that's what *I* get every time I hear/read that tired old attempt at an excuse.

Also, just an aside on the whole USMC thing, my time there made me doubt the logic behind LOTS of the things they do. That neither proves nor disproves anything about this argument, but in my world the idea that something must be right because that's the way the USMC does it is pretty amusing and makes me chuckle. As a young recruit, I sat around a white barrel at Camp Pendleton and repeatedly pulled the trigger on a rifle that was pointed more or less squarely at another recruit on the other side of the barrel. So that MUST be a good idea. One of you newer Marines, do they still do that?

Thank you for your service and we'll operate under the assumption my post prompted the USMC reference. You actually made me laugh as I recalled the white barrel, a memory resurrected.

Now, to the "I didn't know it was loaded"

This is exactly what I would expect someone to say as it is the pat response and attempt to remove blame and accountability for a ND.

It's akin to someone causing an auto accident. We don't often them hear them say, "I was speeding" or "looks like a drank one too many" or "I was having a fit of road rage".
No, we generally hear, "I didn't see them" "They came out of nowhere" I didn't know the road" "It was dark" so on, so forth.

The fact that people don't take responsibility for their actions not only common, it's expected.

I would be interested to see a compilation of data on the amount of ND's and the training background of the offenders. I'm going to assume that the one MILLION people per year that the NRA has trained in firearm safety, has also had their share of ND. I'm going to also assume that many of those ND mentioned that the gun wasn't loaded in an attempt to escape culpability.

Now, that being said, I cannot factually support any of these statements, but that's the context we are operating within when we say things like, ND is a result of Rule#1, or some variation of it. Opinion.

Thanks again for your service, The suck isn't perfect but it established some life long values into me that ensured I safety checked a used pistol i bought in a parking lot a few days ago. During that safety check, a live round popped out.

Always loaded indeed.

 

[JettaKnight]

For me the original post wasn't so much a confirmation of Rule #1, but a confirmation that people make mistakes, we should check and plan for this, and guns should be treated the same way always.

 

[BugI02]

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?

The language you use indicates that this is your opinion. Please meditate on the ubiquity and olfactory unpleasantness of the common opinion.

As far as more rules, some organizations are already there:

NSSF, TEN rules Firearms Safety | 10 Rules of Safe Gun Handling

Smith and Wesson, FIVE rules Handgun Safety Rules - Smith & Wesson

I've seen as many as twelve

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.

From the NRA. Rule three looks suspiciously like the actions Cooper's rule one would engender. And no mention of knowing your target and what's beyond it? Looks like you could use a rule four after all


1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who

From Appleseed. Again no mention of knowing your target and what's beyond it. I think I begin to understand the problem. Your version of the four rules is specific to training at a range. It is a proper subset of the four rules aimed at a specific, limited set of circumstances. Kind of a four rules with training wheels

I would remind you that Cooper's four rules were directed at, and he taught, fighting pistol

Appleseed marksmanship clinics provide these 4 Rules:

• Always keep the muzzle in a safe direction.
• Do not load until given the load command.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target.
• Make sure those around you follow the safety rules.

I just don't see the rule regime you advocate as being targeted at eliminating NDs, It seems to be more aimed at making sure NDs are less lethal. If you think that's the way to go, you are entitled to your opinion

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

For me the original post wasn't so much a confirmation of Rule #1, but a confirmation that people make mistakes, we should check and plan for this, and guns should be treated the same way always.

Excellent post. No doubt, my post could have been cryptic and honestly, I apologize for that. Meaning and intent are so difficult to demonstrate in printed media and I don't always translate well in these forums, agreed.

That being said, I honestly made the post to share a safety win, i never imagined it would turn into the conversation that it did. I've been here 7 years, mostly lurking, and had a few hundred posts up to this point (time constraints, job, family, etc)

Looking back, I would not have started this thread because it just seems too divisive a topic to debate online. I think I will spend a bit more time to mend fences and go back into dark mode and let the regulars debate the hot topics. Thanks for the discussion and I appreciate the input.

 

[indiucky]

For me the original post wasn't so much a confirmation of Rule #1, but a confirmation that people make mistakes, we should check and plan for this, and guns should be treated the same way always.

Well said Spock...But you know logic has no place on a four rules thread.....

I am still dealing with the shame that I occasionally spin a cowboy revolver while watching Hell on Wheels........

 

[churchmouse]

Well said Spock...But you know logic has no place on a four rules thread.....

I am still dealing with the shame that I occasionally spin a cowboy revolver while watching Hell on Wheels........

I was spinning one last night.............It is a fake though so does that matter in here....?????

 

[indiucky]

I was spinning one last night.............It is a fake though so does that matter in here....?????

Wuss...

 

[churchmouse]

Wuss...

I do not have a real one.........so there.......I said it

 

[fjw2]

I'm glad you posted it. Very interesting to follow the progression of it. Who doesn't enjoy a spirited discussion?

 

[indiucky]

Very interesting to follow the progression of it. Who doesn't enjoy a spirited discussion?

Old men...We KNOW we are right..End of discussion...