Rule Number One: All Guns are always loaded

[oldpink]

If whatever rules you follow are 100% reliable, why the **** get tied up in knots over semantics?
This is just argument simply for the sake of being contrarian.

 

[JettaKnight]

If whatever rules you follow are 100% reliable, why the **** get tied up in knots over semantics?
This is just argument simply for the sake of being contrarian.

Au Contraire!

What you rules you follow may be adequate if they meet the "acceptable level of safety" (e.g. not sweeping people). The concern is when you try to teach others with whatever convoluted rules you may have. In teaching, clarity is king.

 

[308jake]

This is true. I'm sure we are all safe with firearms, and I frankly don't care how we as INGO individuals achieve that. However, I do care how we teach others, and I believe it is especially important to teach new people a clear, concise set of rules that is unwavering.

Old Pink it wouldn't be INGO if we didn't argue over something. I could say the sky is as blue as the ocean and within minutes 10 people would be on here arguing the actual color of every ocean.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Au Contraire!

What you rules you follow may be adequate if they meet the "acceptable level of safety" (e.g. not sweeping people). The concern is when you try to teach others with whatever convoluted rules you may have. In teaching, clarity is king.

Within the context of this thread, it's the 4 rules of safety, not just any old set of convoluted rules.

i agree that teaching with clarity is king, that's why all of the major branches of U.S. Military teach the 4 rules of safety.

 

[JettaKnight]

Within the context of this thread, it's the 4 rules of safety, not just any old set of convoluted rules.

i agree that teaching with clarity is king, that's why all of the major branches of U.S. Military teach the 4 rules of safety.

* Sigh *



I'm pretty sure the the Air Force just teaches the Eddy the Eagle method: don't touch it and tell an adult.

 

[oldpink]

* Sigh *



I'm pretty sure the the Air Force just teaches the Eddy the Eagle method: don't touch it and tell an adult.

When I was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy, they taught us the Four Rules.
That's what I was taught, that's what I taught all those I instructed when doing gun shoots, that's what I taught my wife and daughter.
I'm not prepared to say that the Navy was totally wrong and that someone else knows better.
Deal with it.

 

[crispy]

Classic Straw Man

1. Nobody has said Jeff Cooper/Navy was TOTALLY wrong.

2. As evidenced by EVERYONE using some version of his rules with minor modifications. Almost always to rule #1.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

When I was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy, they taught us the Four Rules.
That's what I was taught, that's what I taught all those I instructed when doing gun shoots, that's what I taught my wife and daughter.
I'm not prepared to say that the Navy was totally wrong and that someone else knows better.
Deal with it.

+1

The Marine Corps continues to teach the 4 rules as well, I'll stick with that program as opposed to what some guy says on the internet..

Should the U.S. military move to the NRA 3 rule standard, I would be happy to modify my safety training methodology.


Can anyone provide a list of credible, gun training entities that have dropped the 4 rules and moved to the 3 rule NRA format?

 

[iChokePeople]

"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.

 

[crispy]

+1

The Marine Corps continues to teach the 4 rules as well, I'll stick with that program as opposed to what some guy says on the internet..

Should the U.S. military move to the NRA 3 rule standard, I would be happy to modify my safety training methodology.


Can anyone provide a list of credible, gun training entities that have dropped the 4 rules and moved to the 3 rule NRA format?

Every one of those videos you posted had a different version from Jeff Cooper's 4 rules. Which one are you going with?

 

[JettaKnight]

+1

The Marine Corps continues to teach the 4 rules as well, I'll stick with that program as opposed to what some guy says on the internet..

Should the U.S. military move to the NRA 3 rule standard, I would be happy to modify my safety training methodology.

Curious.

So, if the DoD issues a directive that the Four Rules are to be replaced by the Three Rules, how, pray tell, would you modify my safety training methodology? What would you do differently?

I still find it fascinating that you want to be part of the in crowd so much that you are willing to forgo reasoning. I mean, you already know both the Three Rules and the Four Rules. You follow, recite and teach the Four Rules because that's what the DoD uses; not because that's the safer set of rules.

If the Four Rules were the safer set of rules, then you've stated that you switch to more dangerous rules simple to be inline with the DoD.

 

[BugI02]

When I was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy, they taught us the Four Rules.
That's what I was taught, that's what I taught all those I instructed when doing gun shoots, that's what I taught my wife and daughter.
[snip]

[snip]
2. As evidenced by EVERYONE using some version of his rules with minor modifications. Almost always to rule #1.
[snip]

oldpink has already given you evidence that refutes your assertion that everyone uses a modified version of the four rules (his own use of them)

I can give you another, as I also use the four rules without modifications

Who is it, again, who is bundling up dried grass men?

 

[oldpink]

oldpink has already given you evidence that refutes your assertion that everyone uses a modified version of the four rules (his own use of them)

I can give you another, as I also use the four rules without modifications

Who is it, again, who is bundling up dried grass men?

"You are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men."
-George F. Will

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Curious.

So, if the DoD issues a directive that the Four Rules are to be replaced by the Three Rules, how, pray tell, would you modify my safety training methodology? What would you do differently?

I still find it fascinating that you want to be part of the in crowd so much that you are willing to forgo reasoning. I mean, you already know both the Three Rules and the Four Rules. You follow, recite and teach the Four Rules because that's what the DoD uses; not because that's the safer set of rules.

If the Four Rules were the safer set of rules, then you've stated that you switch to more dangerous rules simple to be inline with the DoD.

So the Marine Corps has forgone reasoning because they haven't switched to the NRA's 3 rule system, Got it.

 

[BugI02]

Curious.

So, if the DoD issues a directive that the Four Rules are to be replaced by the Three Rules, how, pray tell, would you modify my safety training methodology? What would you do differently?

I still find it fascinating that you want to be part of the in crowd so much that you are willing to forgo reasoning. I mean, you already know both the Three Rules and the Four Rules. You follow, recite and teach the Four Rules because that's what the DoD uses; not because that's the safer set of rules.

If the Four Rules were the safer set of rules, then you've stated that you switch to more dangerous rules simple to be inline with the DoD.

Jetta, I just ran a quick goto on whether there was any data that teaching four rules or three was demonstrably safer. I couldn't find any, so I'm curious why you assert that the four rules are in fact a more dangerous construct. Perhaps you have a link to the missing data?

By the way, this is a nicely crafted bit of character assassination, but I'm not sure of it's relevance to the points under discussion.

Go!

 

[BugI02]

From: Four Rules: Kind of Like Religion | Shall Not Be Questioned

Four Rules: Kind of Like Religion


Alan over at Snarkybytes takes issue with the four rules. I tend to think of the rules as being a construct to help people understand safe gun handling, more than literal commandments that must be taken at their very word. In that sense it’s kind of like religion — if you get all fundamentalist with it, it loses its point.
We know that there is, of course, such a thing as an unloaded gun. Cooper’s point is more that we should not assume a gun is safe just because we’re certain it’s unloaded. More than a few people have been killed by guns that someone was certain wasn’t loaded. That’s the problem rule one is meant to solve. I’m not sure how concerned we should be about how we accomplish cleaning, dry firing, and smithing conceptually within the framework of rule one, because that seems to be missing the forest for the trees. That ends up getting into debates that go something like, “Well, if you take the slide off, and remove the barrel, is it still really a gun you have to treat as loaded? I mean, if I’m staring down a barrel out of the firearm, how is it different than staring down a pluming pipe?” All reasonable technical observations, and interesting in an academic sort of way, but I’m not sure we need to argue about such things when thinking about promoting safe gun handling.
I tend to think the four rules are fine, but I think they have to be taken for what they are; a conceptual framework for safe gun handling. One could certainly make literal arguments for why they do or don’t apply in this situation or that situation, and where they fall apart if taken literally, but to me that’s in the realm of an academic exercise. I think in terms of promoting safe gun handling, they’ve suited the community just fine.

 

[crazycatlady1]

We have a friend who is a x policeman and prison worker I showed him my 1911 scorpion cocked and locked he was holding his 9mm Beretta was so nervous about my gun had his finger on his trigger shot wife's back window out went through front seat shoulder and into door. My husband and have never seen a unbelievable broken rules of a misfire. We Thank God no one was hurt we was at a Out Back. I pray we never see it again

 

[churchmouse]

We have a friend who is a x policeman and prison worker I showed him my 1911 scorpion cocked and locked he was holding his 9mm Beretta was so nervous about my gun had his finger on his trigger shot wife's back window out went through front seat shoulder and into door. My husband and have never seen a unbelievable broken rules of a misfire. We Thank God no one was hurt we was at a Out Back. I pray we never see it again

Bad discipline. Just bad.

 

[JettaKnight]

So the Marine Corps has forgone reasoning because they haven't switched to the NRA's 3 rule system, Got it.

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.

 

[JettaKnight]

We're now at 32 pages and no one has shown a clear, logical reason that Rule #1 is needed in addition to Rules 2-4.

Telling, don't you think?