Inshallah Instructor Injures Individual

[BugI02]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue

Urban Dictionary: Argument

TOP DEFINITION
Argument
A discussion that occurs in which I'm right, but he/she/they haven't realized it yet.

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
Please, stay engaged, find out where all this is leading...

[snip]
Attempting to stop me? Good luck.

Dude, you're unpacking the crazy again, and we just got that mess put away

 

[ATM]

...Am I playing your passions like a cheap trombone to generate content and discussion?

Yeah, if only I could find a way to keep people passionately generating content and discussion...

I wonder if I could make a case that I began by playing only Kirk's passion like a cheap trombone engaging only what he had generated? Sure, I could.

People love them some trombone, though, it's simply irresistible.

<cue indiucky>

Urban Dictionary: Argument

TOP DEFINITION
Argument
A discussion that occurs in which I'm right, but he/she/they haven't realized it yet.

That is delicious and I will certainly steal it for future use. Thank you.

Dude, you're unpacking the crazy again, and we just got that mess put away

Different responses to different people for different occasions? That is crazy!

Why do fishermen have those huge tackle boxes when all fish respond well to the same sort of bait in every season? Probably just their huge egos.

I'll be back tonight to round up any "loose change" so nothing slips through the cracks. Good stuff!

 

[ATM]

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

Did you consider the loaded and holstered EDC or safely moving it in a loaded condition between holster and storage to be troublesome scenarios for the NRA3? You posted those after I’d already addressed it twice just in this thread (in greater detail in other threads), then I challenged your assumption again. Do you have anything trickier that hasn’t already been reasonably addressed? I’m willing to explore more if you come up with anything.

I contend that removing Cooper's #4 and moving are worded 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.

Interesting. I’ll challenge you to support your contention, but first I’ll offer my own perspective of the changes.

My progression, as you likely know but others might not, was not directly from Cooper4 to NRA3.
I tossed Cooper’s #1 in the trash where it belongs long ago and continued to handle guns safely with Cooper’s 2-4 as my guide. When Cooper#1 was presented in training classes, as a student, I just nodded at the nonsense and continued to handle guns safely while disregarding it entirely. I doubt I was unique in this.

They looked like this to me:
1. NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
2. KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
3. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEYOND

From there, it was reasonable to consider the NRA3 an improvement over those:
1. ALWAYS Keep The Gun Pointed In A Safe Direction
2. ALWAYS Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Ready To Shoot
3. ALWAYS Keep The Gun Unloaded Until Ready To Use

Here’s why:
#3 gets packaged up as an instructional discussion point under #1 in considering what a safe direction means and how our environment and many other factors should be used to determine if, when, and where we point our guns. It’s a natural fit there.
In what way does that “serve the self-interest of the NRA and does not serve the general population as well”?

In that #3 place comes another safe gun handling step, unloading a gun you aren’t ready to use or don’t need ready for use. (Guns only got one job.)
If you have a reason to load it or leave it loaded, do so, otherwise, default to another level of risk mitigation by unloading it. Note that it’s just another possible added level of risk mitigation, less important than keeping our finger off the trigger, and far less important than keeping it pointed in a safe direction.

This seems to be what so many try to construe old Cooper#1 into meaning, but now there’s something that simply says that and simply means that. It’s not the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] thing you do - that would be out of order - it’s the 3[SUP]rd [/SUP]unless you have a reason for it to be loaded, then you’re relying on the risk mitigation of only the first two practices. It’s a natural fit there at the bottom, beneath two more important safe gun handling rules.
In what way does that “serve the self-interest of the NRAand 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.

24 pages of you not being convinced and rejecting opinions? Oh, dear, whatever shall I do, and how shall I continue?

J/K, buddy, I’m glad you’re along for the ride. This is a process, don’t get ahead of yourself and pick your preferred hypothesis as your conclusion before the rigorous testing and application phase. Your preferred hypothesis might not rise above the challengers.

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.

You’ll get it. You’ve missed some stuff, but you also haven’t yet considered some other stuff. It should get more interesting as we go. I don’t just hand out fish, I teach people to fish and to teach others how to fish.

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'sRider's event where he is Shoot Boss...ooops, that might be obsolete terminology...Event Organizer.

Thanks for your dedication and support to improving not just the existing gun culture, but every American.

Learn today – Teach tomorrow

Every American choosing Liberty every day.

 

[ATM]

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.

You should, it actually explains a lot about my methods: https://www.16personalities.com/entp-personality

If one is to portray an invincible character, one should learn to embrace their natural strengths and operate from them whenever possible. I’m a natural a$$.

 

[ATM]

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.

...As I said, show me where someone had an ND faithfully following either set.

Counting on humans to faithfully adhere to a list of rules is simple folly. Reasonably lead them to process the fundamental principles and reasonably adopt them as their own or don't bother wasting your time.

Faithfully adhering to "don't do stupid stuff" would be sufficient if it meant anything. We could still tell anyone that ever does anything stupid they just broke that rule.

 

[ATM]

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?

Identifying one set with the NRA and adopting or rejecting it on that basis alone is no different than identifying another set with Cooper and adopting or rejecting it on that basis alone.

It is not reasonable or logical to do so and you can't possibly defend it as such.

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

It simply says and means what it simply says and means. Not everything simple makes sense to everyone immediately, that's why teachers exist.

 

[ATM]

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...

Here's what I think:

Those who cling to Cooper's#1 most fiercely probably imagine it to contain and sum up everything they've ever learned about gun safety. They want to give others everything they've ever learned about gun safety so they hand it to them.

In reality, Cooper's #1 does not contain or sum up everything they've learned and it is not even required. There are better ways to present all we've learned and it should start and end with fundamental safe gun handling, the bookends of all that we could teach them about guns and gun safety.

In this, we either ensure their continued success on the journey or may set them up to fail horribly.

Cooper's #1 was a knee-jerk authoritarian response to a common but ridiculous excuse for irresponsibly handling firearms when simple steps to mitigate risks should have been taken, but weren't.

It answers the ridiculous excuse with a rule, in a sense validating the pathetic justification attempt by its very existence.

Ridiculous excuses and justification attempts should be demolished with reason, not rules. Destroy the attempt and demand an account from the negligent handler so nobody who witnesses the correction ever tries that same crap again.

I've identified a problem, I've determined a solution and shown how easily it works and can be employed by anyone (very early in this thread). I've shown examples, what's not to like? Me? The NRA?

Who wants to destroy that excuse and eradicate it ever rearing its head again within the gun culture?

Who wants to make gun handling great again?

Who's willing to let their own baggage expire with them and give the next generation a reasonable advancement to adopt and distribute?

Who will dig in their heels and say, NEVER!

Why?

 

[BugI02]

You should, it actually explains a lot about my methods: https://www.16personalities.com/entp-personality

I have not encountered a pre-fab hagiography before

 

[ATM]

I have not encountered a pre-fab hagiography before

Which of those 16 types best describes you?

Are you willing to share an accurate description of both your strengths and your weaknesses?

Do you trust INGO to not use that information against you?

 

[cbhausen]

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.

Please explain the difference between gun handling and gun use and how this distinction is addressed by Cooper versus the NRA. Take all the time you need.

 

[jamil]

Please explain the difference between gun handling and gun use and how this distinction is addressed by Cooper versus the NRA. Take all the time you need.

ATM made the distinction apparent. It's obviously important to him.

 

[ATM]

ATM made the distinction apparent. It's obviously important to him.

Any feedback on my thoughts regarding those distinctions? Do they ring true or way off base?

 

[jamil]

Any feedback on my thoughts regarding those distinctions? Do they ring true or way off base?

I've addressed that with not apples/apples. Let's not go in circles. cbhausen had claimed that there's no difference. Surely there must be because you brought it up.

 

[ATM]

I've addressed that with not apples/apples. Let's not go in circles. cbhausen had claimed that there's no difference. Surely there must be because you brought it up.

It was my response (#288) to your apples/apples I'm referring to, not anything cbhausen asked of you after that.

 

[jamil]

It was my response (#288) to your apples/apples I'm referring to, not anything cbhausen asked of you after that.

Oh. I'll get to that and a few other posts when I have time. I have a deadline.

 

[1775usmarine]

While in the Marines during boot camp we always would say treat never keep keep before lights out. If its good enough for the Corps its good enough for me. Also IBTL

 

[Alpo]

Identifying one set with the NRA and adopting or rejecting it on that basis alone is no different than identifying another set with Cooper and adopting or rejecting it on that basis alone.

It is not reasonable or logical to do so and you can't possibly defend it as such.



It simply says and means what it simply says and means. Not everything simple makes sense to everyone immediately, that's why teachers exist.

Actually, I don't really care whether you agree with me or not.

If it's good enough for the Marines it's good enough for everyone.

Coop!

Semper Fi

 

[BugI02]

Which of those 16 types best describes you?

Are you willing to share an accurate description of both your strengths and your weaknesses?

Do you trust INGO to not use that information against you?

Do I get to pick one that I like or that best feeds my ego? Is that how you became an IBTL or whatever? I thought a test had something to do with it

I will tell you I'm deeply skeptical of the whole thing, because the descriptions are like horoscopes, none of them are bad. If we're dealing with humanity, I think think some people should take the test and the answer comes back "You're a useless drone who has to be carried by your co-workers 24/7" or "You're a high maintenance ***** who will never find someone who believes you're worth the effort"

A test that indicates that everyone is wonderful with only small flaws they need to work on is just so much psycho-drivel to me. What do the participation trophies look like

 

[BugI02]

Actually, I don't really care whether you agree with me or not.

If it's good enough for the Marines it's good enough for everyone.

Coop!

Semper Fi

Agreed, but extending beyond that - it's not an argument and can't be 'won', at least for me

I prefer Cooper's 4 Rules, just like I often prefer a dollop of cream in my coffee. You could argue that black coffee is [better, healthier, the way coffee was meant to be drunk yada yada] but you will not convince me, because I am stating a personal preference and see no need to justify same to anyone but myself