Inshallah Instructor Injures Individual

[jamil]

He thought my purpose was to make rationalizations for the negligent, unsafe gun handling. He was ridiculously wrong.
Why was he wrong? His perception trumped reality. This is a problem, a big one.



That's exactly what I'm saying. Care to explore and discuss the reasoning further, or will you avoid the exercise because your conclusion is fixed?



If you have no further contributions on this subject, why do you keep typing in this thread?



Identify and advance past roadblocks? Of course.



Attempting to stop me? Good luck.

1. This isn't an exercise you're conducting on your pupils. I'm not your pupil. You've not earned that with me. Here's the reality. We're all just members of a gun board posting what we think. In this case, we're discussing the helplessly pedantic trivial differences between two different sets of gun safety rules. For cryin' out loud.

2. Regarding the bold text. Then, as promised, I say you're as wrong as anyone who says the NRA 3 shouldn't be taught. We've discussed that in the other thread about this topic several months ago. You've not presented anything new that counters my conclusion about this. I suggested a way for you to convince me that this is more than trivial. But you declined.

3. I'm not trying to stop you. You're free to claim **** matters more than it does. I'm free to say it's much ado about not much until such time that you can present a good case that it's more than trivial. You haven't done that.

 

[jamil]

Dang.


That was funny.

Facile. But funny. Yes. If I were drinking coffee. I'd probably have spewed some.

 

[hog slayer]

I'll wait for you to make some case for your claim before I decide. Do you have a case to make the claim or did you trust your own presuppositions? Did you scrutinize them yourself before making the claim so it wouldn't appear foolish?

It's not necessary for you to respond to my posts. Surely you realize that I have already decided on a "measure of the man." The biggest obstacle for me is not in generating enough evidence for myself within the confines of this forum, but in finding evidence to support a couple of trusted sources who have a slightly different idea of who you are. Nonetheless, I AM indeed, asking you to present something in this forum that would cause someone to believe any differently about you. If you choose not to, you already know that I have graded you as not a leader of men. Not that that is such a bad grade. I have reviewed you. You can rebut it, or not.

When it saves someone you love from causing or becoming a senseless and easily preventable tragedy, perhaps you'll reconsider.

We are all in this together. What is your role?

This is value added.

 

[jamil]

It does seem that the focus is becoming too close to personalities rather than just talking about the subject. ATM's "sensei" personality tends to rub some people the wrong way. I tend not to accept someone as a "teacher" until it's earned. So I'll admit that I am completely turned off by his approach. And that's all I have to say about personalities.

 

[ATM]

1. This isn't an exercise you're conducting on your pupils. I'm not your pupil. You've not earned that with me. Here's the reality. We're all just members of a gun board posting what we think. In this case, we're discussing the helplessly pedantic trivial differences between two different sets of gun safety rules. For cryin' out loud.

2. Regarding the bold text. Then, as promised, I say you're as wrong as anyone who says the NRA 3 shouldn't be taught. We've discussed that in the other thread about this topic several months ago. You've not presented anything new that counters my conclusion about this. I suggested a way for you to convince me that this is more than trivial. But you declined.

3. I'm not trying to stop you. You're free to claim **** matters more than it does. I'm free to say it's much ado about not much until such time that you can present a good case that it's more than trivial. You haven't done that.

You can watch as others continue the exercise, I don't mind that you skim things, just know that your conclusions tend to suffer for it.

Suffering, fixed conclusions might not even be worth holding.

 

[cordex]

As a matter of fact, yes I do. Do you know him? Have you met him? Have you ever worked a firing line with him? He has trained hundreds (if not thousands) firearm safety, handling and marksmanship (not to mention American history and heritage and civic responsibility). He has done ALL of this without charging a penny because he loves this country and the Liberty we enjoy here, He has worked diligently to instill in others the love and appreciation for what our Founders did for generations to come while being absolutely apolitical in the process.

I have never met ATM to my knowledge. He may well be the awesomest guy on the block who does all kinds of really cool things. Regardless, the character he plays on this issue does not in any way reflect that. Maybe I would overlook that if I grew to like him in the flesh, but as it stands I have only his words to go by.

Have you given example scenarios to highlight any shortcomings yet? Do you intend to?

As I've said repeatedly, either can be taught well. If well taught, well learned, and well applied then either will serve well in any scenario. That is not and has never been at issue from my perspective. The question at hand is which is a more effective way to teach the same basic concepts.

Vastly different. Most who critique using the Cooper4 list only regurgitate Cooper #1 and consider that sufficient. I showed a different way based on the NRA3 and it was considerably richer than that.

There is truth in pointing out that people who do dumb things with guns often do so because they didn't believe the gun was loaded. The reason you get snippy that is because there is no explicit rule in your favored rules which says anything about that.

Even so, ignoring for the moment whether your "different way" is more or less effective in instruction, it could be based on Cooper4 or NRA3 equally. There is nothing fundamental about NRA3 which makes it suitable for that style of instruction and Cooper4 unsuitable.

Actually, if they used the NRA3 set as a basis of application and correction, they'd have to address the actual unsafe actions.

First of all, they broke several rules relating directly to actions no matter which set you prefer. Addressing those issues point by point is certainly an option - and indeed was already done by the author of the article that Kirk linked. Secondly, they would not have chosen to break the other rules had they behaved as though the firearm was loaded, and I believe that is an absolutely reasonable thing to bring up.

Their "instructional style" of blaming everything on assuming a gun was unloaded wouldn't begin to make any sense without Cooper#1 on the list. Try again.

That's pedantic. Of course an NRA3 adherent following the same instructional style wouldn't blame it on being unloaded because that isn't on their rule set. Lacking that instruction to point to they might simply state: "Didn't point it in a safe direction!" There is no difference there. Try again.

Just go back and see who brought their arguments to me. I accepted with glee, but I didn't make them challenge me or what I was doing.

So other people having the gall to disagree with you explains and justifies you being ineffective at communication? Who can argue with that?

 

[TheJoker]

Your lack of understanding (or unwillingness to understand) is wide and deep.

I think I have clearly explained my position. I have given scenarios. Your lack of understanding (or unwillingness to understand) is equally wide and deep.

I contend that removing Cooper's #4 and moving a reworded Cooper's #1 to the bottom of the list serves the self interest of the NRA and does not serve the general population as well.

I have considered with an open mind the opinions of the NRA 3 proponents, many of whom I hold the highest regard; but, I am not convinced. I reject the opinion that Cooper's#1 is a failure. I reject the opinion that the NRA 3 are better because they are more efficient(...a Prius is more efficient than my Firebird; but, certainly not better...my opinion of course). I reject the opinion that Safe Direction and Identifying Target/What is Behind It are not distinctly different activities and worthy of differentiation. Frankly, I see no scenario or example that proves the NRA 3 superior to Cooper's 4. It seems we have spent 24 pages debating one opinion verses another opinion.

As I have already stated, I'm happy to adhere any set of rules which are required for my participation in an event. But, there is no evidence that compels me to not continue using Cooper's 4 in my day to day operation. I also see no pressing need to force the NRA 3 on folks who have been served well their entire lives by Cooper's 4. Unless I have missed something, there has not been a single example in 24 pages of debate where a ND resulted from someone following Cooper's 4 that would have been prevented by NRA 3.

I have never met ATM to my knowledge. He may well be the awesomest guy on the block who does all kinds of really cool things. Regardless, the character he plays on this issue does not in any way reflect that. Maybe I would overlook that if I grew to like him in the flesh, but as it stands I have only his words to go by.

ETA: You should meet the man! You just might find that everything you said in the above quote is true in spades. Although, you left out that his singing of the all clear cadence is nothing short of epic! I so strongly believe this that I will buy your admission to the next Revere's Rider's event where he is Shoot Boss...ooops, that might be obsolete terminology...Event Organizer.

 

[hog slayer]

It does seem that the focus is becoming too close to personalities rather than just talking about the subject. ATM's "sensei" personality tends to rub some people the wrong way. I tend not to accept someone as a "teacher" until it's earned. So I'll admit that I am completely turned off by his approach. And that's all I have to say about personalities.

Post #48:
Application. That's it. Sure, the three make sense. But it isn't simply about making sense. It's about being effective. I don't expect you to understand this. You're a thinker. Not a leader. You have value aplenty. But your lack of understanding in this matter is of a lack of experience in leading men in the application of safe gun handling, regardless of setting.

If I am making this about personalities, I am mistaken. I do need to adjust fire if that is how this comes across. I wish to determine if ATM has enough application experience to say that the affect of teaching the 4 rules is unsafe. Because I cannot discern that as fact without a bit more information, I am left to determine it based on methods. His methods are for all to see.

Character is something that makes every difference. What is a man without it? His character is being determined continually (as are all of us wherever and however we choose to engage other men). I do not wish to fall victim to assessing his personality.

 

[ATM]

It's not necessary for you to respond to my posts. Surely you realize that I have already decided on a "measure of the man." The biggest obstacle for me is not in generating enough evidence for myself within the confines of this forum, but in finding evidence to support a couple of trusted sources who have a slightly different idea of who you are. Nonetheless, I AM indeed, asking you to present something in this forum that would cause someone to believe any differently about you. If you choose not to, you already know that I have graded you as not a leader of men. Not that that is such a bad grade. I have reviewed you. You can rebut it, or not.

Only my ego would demand that I rebut claims against me, my experience, my nature or my character. It's tempting to do so, I'll admit.

Resisting that temptation gets easier every time I manage to succeed. Present your case or don't.

This is value added.

It challenged and continues to challenge me.

 

[jamil]

Post #48:
Application. That's it. Sure, the three make sense. But it isn't simply about making sense. It's about being effective. I don't expect you to understand this. You're a thinker. Not a leader. You have value aplenty. But your lack of understanding in this matter is of a lack of experience in leading men in the application of safe gun handling, regardless of setting.

If I am making this about personalities, I am mistaken. I do need to adjust fire if that is how this comes across. I wish to determine if ATM has enough application experience to say that the affect of teaching the 4 rules is unsafe. Because I cannot discern that as fact without a bit more information, I am left to determine it based on methods. His methods are for all to see.

Character is something that makes every difference. What is a man without it? His character is being determined continually (as are all of us wherever and however we choose to engage other men). I do not wish to fall victim to assessing his personality.

A character determination is about personality. Of course we're going to make those assessments. But they don't have to be part of the conversation in a public forum. That's what often turns these kinds of threads sour.

But to the topic, to me, this is an impractical discussion about the trivial differences of two sets of rules. I'm saying this as a consumer, not as a firearms expert.

This essentially becomes an appeal to authority. If you both say you're authorities on the subject, we have a case where two presumed authorities have reached different conclusions. So then what? Who is right? Who is wrong? Could both wrong? At least a little? Well, we should be able to test this.

If Cooper's 4 rules are as dangerous as ATM says they are (my recollection of that conversation months ago was that he at least implied that claim), and if the NRA's 3 rules are so much superior, there should be a detectable difference in people's behavior with firearms regarding safety. So, can we answer the question, do people who've been taught Cooper's 4 rules behave less safe with firearms than people who've been taught the NRA's rules? Did learning Cooper's 4 rules contribute to the ND posted in this thread's OP? I suspect that what lead to the ND wasn't particularly whether he learned Cooper or NRA rules. It was his mindset at the time. I'm sure he knew both lists of precepts. He just had his head up his ass in that moment.

 

[Alpo]

When is the NRA 3 considered incomplete? Perhaps when the NRA adds the following to it's NRA 3"

When using or storing a gun, always follow these additional NRA rules:

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2015/10/6/8-gun-safety-rules-you-may-not-have-heard-of/

So, now do we have the NRA 11?

Coop! Coop! Coop!

 

[TheJoker]

When is the NRA 3 considered incomplete? Perhaps when the NRA adds the following to it's NRA 3"

So, now do we have the NRA 11?
Coop! Coop! Coop!

A coop indeed! It refreshes my opinion of the NRA to see that they didn't drop #4; but, rather moved it to position #1 of the "oh by the way, there are 8 more" section of the rules.

 

[ATM]

I have never met ATM to my knowledge. He may well be the awesomest guy on the block who does all kinds of really cool things. Regardless, the character he plays on this issue does not in any way reflect that. Maybe I would overlook that if I grew to like him in the flesh, but as it stands I have only his words to go by.

I play an invincible character, its only awesome if I stay the course, immovably reasonable. Throw everything you've got against me, see if you can make me adjust course or backtrack. I want you to play the game, but if you don't, how do you suppose I will be stopped?

As I've said repeatedly, either can be taught well. If well taught, well learned, and well applied then either will serve well in any scenario. That is not and has never been at issue from my perspective. The question at hand is which is a more effective way to teach the same basic concepts.

You're the one said, ..."even with their shortcomings the NRA rules aren't the worst in the world." If you don't intend to give example scenarios to highlight any shortcomings, I'll consider that it was just you blowing smoke and move on without further addressing it. Your call.

There is truth in pointing out that people who do dumb things with guns often do so because they didn't believe the gun was loaded.

That is a fallacy, not truth. It's a popular excuse, not a reason. There is no reason to believe a gun is loaded to handle it safely, none. Try defending your statement, I was waiting for someone to lead into this.

The reason you get snippy that is because there is no explicit rule in your favored rules which says anything about that.

I don't get snippy, I just point out the nonsensical failure of answering a ridiculous excuse with a ridiculous "rule" rather than pitching that particular "rule" and demolishing that excuse with reason. It is reason that guides choices and actions when nobody is around to catch you breaking the rules.

That sure seems to make some others around here snippy, but I don't give much weight to their emotional appeals or defensiveness.

Even so, ignoring for the moment whether your "different way" is more or less effective in instruction, it could be based on Cooper4 or NRA3 equally. There is nothing fundamental about NRA3 which makes it suitable for that style of instruction and Cooper4 unsuitable.

That you haven't experienced or even discovered the difference in suitability doesn't worry me. I'm not finished.

First of all, they broke several rules relating directly to actions no matter which set you prefer. Addressing those issues point by point is certainly an option - and indeed was already done by the author of the article that Kirk linked. Secondly, they would not have chosen to break the other rules had they behaved as though the firearm was loaded, and I believe that is an absolutely reasonable thing to bring up.

That's pedantic. Of course an NRA3 adherent following the same instructional style wouldn't blame it on being unloaded because that isn't on their rule set. Lacking that instruction to point to they might simply state: "Didn't point it in a safe direction!" There is no difference there. Try again.

Oh, you mean they'd have to address, challenge and correct the observable actions rather than speculating as to beliefs, stopping there and ridiculing anyone who would dare go further in troubleshooting and solving the root problem? Yes, this is exactly what needs to be done in every instance.

If you conclude there is no difference to contrast, that those are the even similar, your perception has trumped reality.

So other people having the gall to disagree with you explains and justifies you being ineffective at communication? Who can argue with that?

I love it when people have the gall to disagree with me, I encourage it. (dark knight voice) I'm invincible! Go ahead, call me a loony, it's the next line.

 

[cbhausen]

Posts #271 and #272 here show inmitigated bias and closed-mindedness. Cooper's 4 no more address details than the NRA 3 do. Each set is intended as a foundation to build on, one upon which all other desirable behaviors are based. Furthermore, haven't many here just argued the equivalence of 4 vs. 3? You can't have it both ways.

As for 1 rule, "don't do anything stupid with a gun", what the hell does that mean??? Simple, observable, and correctable behaviors are the foundation of safe gun handling. "Every gun..." and "Treat every gun..." are not observable or correctable without further reasoning or justification.

The NRA 3 are clear and concise and if followed explicitly stand the greatest chance of preventing negligent acts without planting the subliminal seed which can germinate into "But I didn't think it was loaded."

 

[jamil]

All these rules are incomplete unless further detail is added. Trying to encapsulate everything into a few easy, memorable concepts is what we do. But there are still grey areas left where an understanding of what is safe and what is not helps us transcend the grey areas. I still assert that whatever bullet-list of rules there are can't outwit a determined moron, nor the ego of an expert like the instructor in the OP. I'd like to hear the tail of an ND caused by someone faithfully adhering to either set of rules.

 

[ATM]

Posts #271 and #272 here show inmitigated bias and closed-mindedness...

They obviously didn't read that past thread I quoted and suggested earlier in this one. That was covered in great detail with another member attempting to claim the same thing.

There are countless gun related rules to consider for storing, maintaining, shooting, etc. but the 3 rules for safe gun handling are completely sufficient to handle guns safely.

I'll get back to the rest and go further later tonight.

Keep 'em coming, INGO!

 

[jamil]

Posts #271 and #272 here show inmitigated bias and closed-mindedness. Cooper's 4 no more address details than the NRA 3 do. Each set is intended as a foundation to build on, one upon which all other desirable behaviors are based. Furthermore, haven't many here just argued the equivalence of 4 vs. 3? You can't have it both ways.

As for 1 rule, "don't do anything stupid with a gun", what the hell does that mean??? Simple, observable, and correctable behaviors are the foundation of safe gun handling. "Every gun..." and "Treat every gun..." are not observable or correctable without further reasoning or justification.

The NRA 3 are clear and concise and if followed explicitly stand the greatest chance of preventing negligent acts without planting the subliminal seed which can germinate into "But I didn't think it was loaded."

Different people seem to be arguing different things. I'm not going to speak for others, but for myself, I won't argue that NRA is any more or less incomplete than Cooper in any ways that matter. Either is fine. As I said, show me where someone had an ND faithfully following either set.

It doesn't matter whether Cooper's rule #1 is observable or correctable without further reasoning. It doesn't matter that both are a foundation for further instruction. Normal people will get it. Morons won't get it, either way. There's no fix for "hold my beer" other than a catastrophe experienced. There's no fix for the arrogant instructor who is showing off his operator skills, other than a catastrophe experienced. The guy in the OP's link probably gets it now having shot someone who didn't need shot.

 

[Alpo]

Posts #271 and #272 here show inmitigated bias and closed-mindedness.

Close-mindedness? I'll say it again: A lot of gunowners can't stand the NRA, particularly as it has existed since the 1980's. The NRA represents 5 million gun owners out of how many? 50 to 60 million?

2 of the NRA 3 make sense. The third does not without further explanation. Coop!

 

[jamil]

They obviously didn't read that past thread I quoted and suggested earlier in this one. That was covered in great detail with another member attempting to claim the same thing.

There are countless gun related rules to consider for storing, maintaining, shooting, etc. but the 3 rules for safe gun handling are completely sufficient to handle guns safely.

I'll get back to the rest and go further later tonight.

Keep 'em coming, INGO!

I will agree that safe storage is a separate issue from safe handling. However, if we're going to say that, we're not exactly comparing apples to apples. Cooper's rules are generally referred to more generically, as gun safety rules. This implies at least use as well as handling. The 3 NRA rules are handling rules. The NRA website lists several other rules in addition to the handling rules which apply to use and storage. I don't think the purpose of Cooper's rules were ever intended to encapsulate all aspects of gun safety.

I think I was 16 when I had to take a gun safety course to get a hunting license back in the 70s. I don't recall when Cooper's rules penned, but if it was before then, it wasn't widely taught as such. But in that course the same concepts of gun safety were taught. And most of the concepts the NRA handling, use, and storage rules were taught as well. Well, except they weren't big on hearing protection back then. I remember shooting a .22 LR revolver in an indoor range and no hearing protection was offered or even talked about. And outdoors with black powder. No ear pro. Bastards.

 

[cordex]

I play an invincible character, its only awesome if I stay the course, immovably reasonable. Throw everything you've got against me, see if you can make me adjust course or backtrack. I want you to play the game, but if you don't, how do you suppose I will be stopped?

You don't come across as invincible. Intractable, dogmatic, a little unclear on logic and reason, and lacking in self-awareness, maybe. Hopefully that's just the character you're playing.

That's one reason people who engage with you are going to tend toward the personal instead of the points you think you're making. You are more about maintaining this image you think you have than actually demonstrating anything. You say you only care about a constant push for improvement, but your posts give lie to that. They show that you're simply trying to play your chosen role and are perfectly willing to ignore valid criticism or logic in favor of trying desperately to pretend to be an infallible guru. You are dragging your own side of the debate down by becoming an irritating, all-show-no-go caricature. That's a good way to drive away people who might otherwise agree with you, or at the very least give you a hearing.

You're the one said, ..."even with their shortcomings the NRA rules aren't the worst in the world."

I've mentioned some, but here are a few off the top of my head.
1. The NRA rules suffer from relatively neutral and sterile phrasing - focusing on gentle and comfortable terms like "safe direction" and "unloaded" versus the more potent "willing to destroy" and "loaded." This reduces their emotional impact which slows internalization.
2. They neglect to innately repeat their universal applicability to all firearms at all times. I believe this matters because history and experience have shown that people believe that the rules don't apply if they think a gun is unloaded. More on this below.
3. NRA #1 may require a greater amount of intellectual processing on the fly for someone not as familiar with firearms to reach the correct response than Cooper #2 and Cooper #4.
4. NRA #3 discusses administrative operations not directly related to safe handling. This is a negative for two reasons. First, it may imply to a novice that once a firearm is believed to be unloaded it is safer and thereby somehow exempt from one or more other rules. Second, while it is absolutely good practice to unload a gun you don't want to go bang, it doesn't have anything to do with actually handling a firearm safely. Whether loaded or unloaded you must always handle a gun safely, so including a loaded/unloaded distinction in the primary rules is not ideal.

That is a fallacy, not truth.

No, it is truth. Not even something I realized was up for debate. People do dumb things that they feel are justified in the moment because they believe the gun to be unloaded - things which they would not do if they believe the gun to be loaded. They are wrong, of course, but do you actually disagree with that statement?

It's a popular excuse, not a reason. There is no reason to believe a gun is loaded to handle it safely, none. Try defending your statement, I was waiting for someone to lead into this.

Of course it is an excuse! Of course they should handle even unloaded guns safely! Of course they should have that subconscious reminder every time they pick up a gun to treat it with the same respect whether they believe it to be loaded or unloaded. Frankly, though, whether you want to call it an excuse or a reason or my left shoe it is their internal justification for why they felt the rules did not apply.

Do you believe that NRA certified instructor in the OP would have put a bullet through someone's legs if he was treating his gun as if it were loaded? He presumably knew the NRA3, but he chose to violate them. In his mind, what was his justification? Why did he feel comfortable breaking those rules and pulling that trigger?

Because reasonable people know deep down that guns are just mechanical and that without the ammunition they are nothing more than relatively harmless assemblies of metal and wood or plastic. If a gun is carefully unloaded, no cartridge is going to magically materialize in the chamber and make it fire. Absent a compelling and constant reminder people tend to become complacent around guns they believe are unloaded. Whatever they might say, they "know" that an unloaded gun is not dangerous. People who would take the strictest care with a gun they believed to be loaded begin to forget all other rules if they've checked that a gun is unloaded. Until they are wrong.

I believe someone reminding themselves constantly to behave as if every gun is loaded no matter what they think about its loaded status is a good way to keep that top of mind. Can you teach people to handle unloaded guns safely without embedding that reminder in your rules? Sure. But I have yet to see a compelling reason to remove it, and I think it is far easier and more effective to include it.

Oh, you mean they'd have to address, challenge and correct the observable actions rather than speculating as to beliefs, stopping there and ridiculing anyone who would dare go further in troubleshooting and solving the root problem? Yes, this is exactly what needs to be done in every instance.

If you conclude there is no difference to contrast, that those are the even similar, your perception has trumped reality.

Speaking of fallacy ... you keep contrasting differences in application, not in ruleset, then hold it up as proof that one ruleset is superior. Despite repeatedly claiming that the NRA3 are better because of the style of instruction you use, you have yet to even try to show how one ruleset is superior for that style. You constantly demand others bring forth evidence and proof, yet in your own replies reject providing any sort of rational argument in favor of appealing to your own authority and making fallacious argument after fallacious argument.