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

[Excalibur]

Forgetting the fact that the guy played with the gun like a toy but the guy who owned the gun took out the magazine but forgot to clear the chamber. That's like handgun 101. Even if you trust your pal with absolute certain as a war buddy, you still wouldn't hand a loaded gun to anyone unless under strict observation like at the range to get them to shoot it. In this case...just dumb. Utterly dumb.

I understand if he didn't clear the chamber if he carries it empty chamber like a lot of stupid people, but he forgot it was still a hot gun...

 

[JettaKnight]

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?

Four rule folks can't even agree what rule #1 is so how can anyone be expected to follow it? You and BWFrame are already divergent.


I suppose if you want to follow it down some tunnel of logic conclusions and such... then perhaps.

I prefer to simply state it's a gun, always follow these three simple rules.



And for these boys:
Ah, ah, ah! No! Don't tell me it's unloaded! That don't make no difference a'tall. Don't make me smack some sense upside your head!

 

[JettaKnight]

Forgetting the fact that the guy played with the gun like a toy but the guy who owned the gun took out the magazine but forgot to clear the chamber. That's like handgun 101. Even if you trust your pal with absolute certain as a war buddy, you still wouldn't hand a loaded gun to anyone unless under strict observation like at the range to get them to shoot it. In this case...just dumb. Utterly dumb.

I understand if he didn't clear the chamber if he carries it empty chamber like a lot of stupid people, but he forgot it was still a hot gun...

Watch the video again.

 

[JettaKnight]

(Gunsite rules)

Parroting a set of ineffective and illogical rules won't bring this young man back from the dead. Nor will it prevent the next tragedy from occurring. It's time to admit the king has no clothes.

There's no shame in coming to the conclusion that the rules you were instilled with are not perfect and has a flaw.



This whole, "four rules... because... four rules", reminds me of Austrian doctors of the 19th century and their resistance to washing their hands between handling cadavers and delivering babies. Even when presented with clear evidence that changing their habits, by using some soap and water, would save lives, they resisted. They stuck with the old ways, young women continued to die, those promoting the new germ theory were derided...

 

[2A_Tom]

I asked my wife if I had ever un-holstered in her presence when not at the range or preparing for bed. She said no.

 

[TheJoker]

...or is this just debate club?

BBI wins a sammich!!!

 

[ATM]

BBI wins a sammich!!!

mmm... sammiches...

 

[JettaKnight]

mmm... sammiches...

Dangit - all I have for lunch today is frozen burritos.

 

[ATM]

Dangit - all I have for lunch today is frozen burritos.

I'd consider arguing for frozen burritos, but this particular thread just won't do for us.

I have another in mind if you're interested.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'd consider arguing for frozen burritos, but this particular thread just won't do for us.

I have another in mind if you're interested.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

I've never argued against the necessity or efficacy of basic firearms handling training (i.e. the Four Rules of safe firearm handling). The thread you quoted was discussing formal training beyond the basic, Four Rules "training." (The Four Rules of safe firearm handling are simply that: rules/principles. They take 5 minutes to learn/teach, and that's if you factor in the time to learn/teach basic firearms anatomy first. That effort hardly constitutes "training" - and certainly doesn't, in the context of the thread you quoted.)

Training, in the context of the thread you quoted, involves concepts of how to carry, how to draw, how to acquire/fire at your target, how to get off the "X", how to reload under duress, etc.

The assertion in the OP in the other thread was that lack of effectiveness training resulted in firearms being more dangerous - i.e. less safety (defined by you in that thread as accidental injuries/fatalities). My argument in that thread was that such training results in greater effectiveness (i.e. stopping the threat), but has negligible impact on safety (i.e. not causing a negligent discharge and/or not injuring an unintended target). The point of my argument is that there is a difference between being ineffective and being unsafe. Not being trained in the former does not cause or imply that one is the latter.

If there is evidence that effectiveness training results in greater safety (as opposed to resulting in greater effectiveness, which is the intent of such training), then by all means: present such evidence. Note: there very well may be a correlation, but correlation does not prove causation. In fact, I think the causal relationship may be exactly reversed (i.e. people who inherently act safely rather than stupidly may be more likely to seek out more advanced training - anecdotally, I fall into this category).

Either way, though: the arguments in that thread have no bearing on this incident. No amount of training - safety training or effectiveness training - can fix/counteract inherently stupid decisions and behaviors. It is obvious, in this incident, that the parties involved already knew that their actions were inherently dangerous - and yet, that knowledge (borne out of some form of training) failed to prevent them from acting stupidly. Whether or not the involved parties received some degree of effectiveness training, it wasn't their training or lack thereof that caused the incident; rather, it was their stupidity.

 

[2A_Tom]

We all know you didn't Chip, but you need to remember, this is INGO Anything you post can and will be used against in whatever manner another of us other snide members can see to wrest it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Chip,

Are firearms dangerous or are they not dangerous? Your whole argument in that thread seemed to be that firearms aren't dangerous, and that so few incident occurred it wasn't even worth looking at. Which is it?

Yes: in absolute terms of ascribing firearms as "dangerous", they are not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We all know you didn't Chip, but you need to remember, this is INGO Anything you post can and will be used against in whatever manner another of us other snide members can see to wrest it.

It's a written format, and all I can go on is what you write. I fail to see the qualifiers or any special context, nor did I remove any context from the quotes. Feel free to read both threads and point out where I've misused any quote.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;o6Y7LIJm5gI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Y7LIJm5gI[/video]

 

[JettaKnight]

Video of an expert.

So, your non-verbal argument is just pointing to the Austrian Doctors?

 

[ATM]

Get Clint Smith in here, B, I'll politely teach him right in front of you, conversationally.

Anyone could.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm open to listening to proposals for a simple, succinct replacement for the 4 rules.

 

[ATM]

I'm open to listening to proposals for a simple, succinct replacement for the 4 rules.

Here ya go:

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

 

[HoughMade]

By definition, 47 pages is not succinct.