Guns Do Not Need Fingers to go Bang

[EPeter213]

If I am understanding ATM's position correctly, his issue is with the 'all guns are always loaded' rule, and it's variations. Clearly, guns can be unloaded, which is what makes the rule absurd in some viewpoints. Why would you want to make the first and primary rule a False Statement, rather than a constructive instruction?

Even 'treat all guns as if they are loaded' becomes redundant if you maintain muzzle and trigger discipline. (Not saying that redundancy is bad when we are talking about safety)

My main issue with preaching 'all guns are always loaded' is that it proclaims a falsehood as a rule, and I, for one, don't like the idea of being lied to, even in the name of safety.

 

[hog slayer]

If I am understanding ATM's position correctly, his issue is with the 'all guns are always loaded' rule, and it's variations. Clearly, guns can be unloaded, which is what makes the rule absurd in some viewpoints. Why would you want to make the first and primary rule a False Statement, rather than a constructive instruction?

Even 'treat all guns as if they are loaded' becomes redundant if you maintain muzzle and trigger discipline. (Not saying that redundancy is bad when we are talking about safety)

My main issue with preaching 'all guns are always loaded' is that it proclaims a falsehood as a rule, and I, for one, don't like the idea of being lied to, even in the name of safety.

Okay. I can see that you don't want to be "lied to", yet I fail to see how this is much different than so many other things that we agree to follow on a day-to-day basis. Accepting posted Road speed limits. Reading fictional novels. We accept things that are not always true with frequency. Besides, the rule isn't that all guns are always loaded, rather than you should treat every gun as if it were loaded. So in the sake of purity, it isn't a lie, but a precaution.

I understand ATM is a very intelligent individual and respectable. Mine isn't a position of disagreement for the sake of argument. You can convince me, then I would change my practices. At this point, the argument isn't substantial enough. I'm going to lean on 241 years of warrior tradition. I never said it was not an uphill battle to convince me otherwise.

 

[EPeter213]

Okay. I can see that you don't want to be "lied to", yet I fail to see how this is much different than so many other things that we agree to follow on a day-to-day basis. Accepting posted Road speed limits. Reading fictional novels. We accept things that are not always true with frequency. Besides, the rule isn't that all guns are always loaded, rather than you should treat every gun as if it were loaded. So in the sake of purity, it isn't a lie, but a precaution.

I understand ATM is a very intelligent individual and respectable. Mine isn't a position of disagreement for the sake of argument. You can convince me, then I would change my practices. At this point, the argument isn't substantial enough. I'm going to lean on 241 years of warrior tradition. I never said it was not an uphill battle to convince me otherwise.

The difference is that this particular instance reduces the credibility of the instruction. I do not have a problem with 'Treat all Firearms as if...' and it's variations, but by itself, it doesn't make a good rule. Some people have no issues with pointing loaded firearms at places they shouldn't.

Speed limits are rules. If you get caught breaking them, you can expect to face the consequences dictated by the law. No falsehood there.

Fictional literature, while it does contain falsehoods, is not intended as instruction.

No disrespect intended here, just clarifying my point of view.

 

[ATM]

In another thread, this discussion continued to a point of persuasiveness, beyond the typical older arguments.

Here's a link to a post in that thread where the OP thought it should have started, and some suggestions which were helpful in framing these "competing rules "more comparatively:

...ATM, I actually think that this post should have been your FIRST POST that was presented in the thread.

If the NRA3 were presented from a TEACHING perspective, it would be much more effective than from an ARGUMENT perspective...

Anyone interested in how it evolved conversationally can read the whole thread.

I welcome further discussion and reasoning and won't just appeal to authority or popularity over and over.

 

[hog slayer]

In another thread, this discussion continued to a point of persuasiveness, beyond the typical older arguments.

Here's a link to a post in that thread where the OP thought it should have started, and some suggestions which were helpful in framing these "competing rules "more comparatively:



Anyone interested in how it evolved conversationally can read the whole thread.

I welcome further discussion and reasoning and won't just appeal to authority or popularity over and over.

Many thanks for the direction to previous lengthy thread. I would have made the same arguments that the other service members did.

I find it an acceptable resolution that the intent is safety.

The look in the mirror is always the hardest one. I must decide whether my intent is to be right or effective. In this case, without question it is effective.

 

[NIFT]

Mr. ATM continues to troll me and claims that I am, somehow, duty bound to respond to his questions and not doing so is a disservice to my students. I do admire his hubris, but he is neither my hiring authority nor do I report to him in any way, shape, or form. He also claims that I have "abandoned" NRA safety rules when he neither knows me nor what we present in classes.

His basic premise is: considering all guns loaded unless one, personally, checks them is "garbled nonsense," claiming, "We shouldn't teach people to treat guns 'as if they're loaded', when what we want is for them to learn to handle guns safely," and he will straighten out Cameron Edwards, Clint Smith, and any others who preach such "nonsense."

I will continue to teach it despite ATM's infinite wisdom to the contrary, as will Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Front Sight, and myriad other reputable organizations.

I am certified in six teaching disciplines by the NRA, am a certified Illinois State Concealed Carry Instructor, and a member of the Indiana SWAT Officers Association, among others. Allow me to quote from a teaching publication from one of my certifying organizations in the section on safe gun handling:
"Whenever you pick up a gun, remove the magazine (if the gun is equipped with a removable magazine), open the action and visually and physically inspect the chamber (s) to determine if the gun is loaded or not."

I am sure Mr. ATM will want to straighten out this organization, too.

Now, he expects me to pay him to come to a class and disrupt it with his superior wisdom. While, again, I acknowledge his incredible hubris, he is most welcome to attend one of our classes to straighten out both me and our guests, when he has no idea, whatsoever, what we teach. However, he will have to pay me for that opportunity. His special rate is, still, $290.00.

No real need to do so, sir, as I am, now, sharing your wisdom, verbatim, in our classes, and our guests find it enlightening.

 

[ATM]

NIFT,

If you can't answer simple questions or just choose not to, I don't mind. I'll keep challenging you to think and discuss what you've adopted and you can keep appealing to authority and popularity over and over.

If you can't even begin to reasonably explain or defend your position in a forum discussion, you wouldn't mange to do it face to face, either.

I've obviously thought about this discussion more than you have. Discuss it with me or just bow out, nothing else is going to work well for you.

 

[hog slayer]

I imagine, Mr Aldridge, that the two of you hold more in common on this issue than either of you would be readily willing to admit. I'm sure you're a fine instructor and you can see if you play baby terrorist for a minute that ATM likes stirring the pot, debates, and generally just relishing in being right. It appears that neither you or I have the restraint on our ego enough to get in heated debates on a forum. I read the previous thread (not in its entirety, and the skinny text on first post is very annoying) and will tell you that it took 42 pages before the issue became clear enough that all could see they were fighting on the same team. The real idea, the only one that really matters, is that only those things we want shot get perforated and everything else is safe from harm. The real deal is out of the thousands of young men I've taught to shoot I always explained in great detail what the safety rules were. I never left it merely at rote memorization. There are exceptions to each of the rules regardless of which side you are on. This was called "unpacking." Now, I will NOT be changing what I teach because I know it all too well, I'll spend the time "unpacking" the rules, and I find no immoral or unethical issue with either side. I also won't be quite so judgemental when I hear others give the NRA trio or other variations, assuming the issue is always on safe gun handling. How we convey our intent is so largely governed by our individual character. So, while everyone has a method, the intent is the same. How our method is presented should matter a lot to our student body.

Now, I'm off to your website to see what classes you offer that may fit in my 2017 budget and training plan.

 

[ATM]

I do enjoy arguing - it's my favorite method of learning and teaching.

 

[HoughMade]

I do enjoy arguing ...

QFT

 

[NIFT]

I imagine, Mr Aldridge, that the two of you hold more in common on this issue than either of you would be readily willing to admit. I'm sure you're a fine instructor and you can see if you play baby terrorist for a minute that ATM likes stirring the pot, debates, and generally just relishing in being right. It appears that neither you or I have the restraint on our ego enough to get in heated debates on a forum. I read the previous thread (not in its entirety, and the skinny text on first post is very annoying) and will tell you that it took 42 pages before the issue became clear enough that all could see they were fighting on the same team. The real idea, the only one that really matters, is that only those things we want shot get perforated and everything else is safe from harm. The real deal is out of the thousands of young men I've taught to shoot I always explained in great detail what the safety rules were. I never left it merely at rote memorization. There are exceptions to each of the rules regardless of which side you are on. This was called "unpacking." Now, I will NOT be changing what I teach because I know it all too well, I'll spend the time "unpacking" the rules, and I find no immoral or unethical issue with either side. I also won't be quite so judgemental when I hear others give the NRA trio or other variations, assuming the issue is always on safe gun handling. How we convey our intent is so largely governed by our individual character. So, while everyone has a method, the intent is the same. How our method is presented should matter a lot to our student body.

Now, I'm off to your website to see what classes you offer that may fit in my 2017 budget and training plan.

We will be delighted to host you, hog slayer, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments vs. the self-aggrandizing rants of a troll accusing me of "abandoning" NRA safety rules for what he labeled "garbled nonsense." Such is far from an argument. He doesn't have the vaguest clue what we teach or how. Ad hominem attacks always say more about the attacker than the one being belittled, but he seems to believe it establishes him as a superior person. Sad. On the plus side, however, he has supplied me with informative material for our classes.

By the way, the quote in my last post, from a teaching publication from one of my certifying organizations, "Whenever you pick up a gun, remove the magazine (if the gun is equipped with a removable magazine), open the action and visually and physically inspect the chamber (s) to determine if the gun is loaded or not," is from the NRA in the safe gun handling section! I suppose he will, now, have to straighten out the NRA on its use of "garbled nonsense."

Looking forward to hosting you.

 

[ATM]

We will be delighted to host you, hog slayer, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments vs. the self-aggrandizing rants of a troll accusing me of "abandoning" NRA safety rules for what he labeled "garbled nonsense." Such is far from an argument. He doesn't have the vaguest clue what we teach or how. Ad hominem attacks always say more about the attacker than the one being belittled, but he seems to believe it establishes him as a superior person. Sad. On the plus side, however, he has supplied me with informative material for our classes.

By the way, the quote in my last post, from a teaching publication from one of my certifying organizations, "Whenever you pick up a gun, remove the magazine (if the gun is equipped with a removable magazine), open the action and visually and physically inspect the chamber (s) to determine if the gun is loaded or not," is from the NRA in the safe gun handling section! I suppose he will, now, have to straighten out the NRA on its use of "garbled nonsense."

Looking forward to hosting you.

Allow me to point out one of your errors, NIFT, since you don't strike me as the type who will read the thread linked above and discover that I've already done so in prior conversation with someone willing to actually engage me on this topic.

That quote is not part of the 3 fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling, it is from a listing of additional NRA rules, essentially just an assortment of general tips and good ideas.

Your primary error is that you can't even fathom that someone would subject that miserable mantra, which you adopted as a fundamental safe gun handling rule, to scrutiny, since you obviously didn't.

Perhaps you assume that whoever you adopted it from could defend it against my scrutiny, but they haven't. You certainly haven't and don't appear equipped to do so. You even admitted that violating your mantra was not unsafe gun handling, there would be nothing for you to possibly correct in doing so.

Do you expect your students to merely appeal to your authority when I challenge what you taught them? They will be embarrassed if that's all they have to stand on. You aren't equipping them to do any better than you have.

Are you ready to discuss that garbled nonsense you cling to or will you keep evading and telling yourself that it is somehow above scrutiny?

Be bold, check your ego and give it a try. I'm ready ...I've actually done this before.

 

[ATM]

...I must decide whether my intent is to be right or effective. In this case, without question it is effective.

I simply must ask a follow-up question:

How is it that you consider right and effective to be mutually exclusive in this case? I chose both.

 

[hog slayer]

I simply must ask a follow-up question:

How is it that you consider right and effective to be mutually exclusive in this case? I chose both.

I read somewhere a perfect response (that was my attempt at respectfully not being able to give credit to the originator): "your opinion does not trump my experience." I think it applies here. You will argue until your mother is blue in the face that the 3 rules of the NRA are the cats meow. I will not argue against their sufficiency in text(right). I will, however, argue that until you have fully imbedded the human element the text really doesn't matter(witnessed effectiveness). You will remain a product of your environment(I cannot say what that is as I do not exactly know you) and I will remain a product of mine(a product of 241 years of warrior culture). What is meant by "effective" is just simply what works. And what works, in this case, is what I personally have seen and employed with positive results.

Don't overlook the secondary and tertiary effects here. There are more trophies to be won here than simply debating which body of rules is the best-est.

 

[ATM]

I read somewhere a perfect response (that was my attempt at respectfully not being able to give credit to the originator): "your opinion does not trump my experience." I think it applies here.

My opinion has nothing to do with this, I seek to reason through this matter with folks of various backgrounds and experiences. Thanks for actually discussing.

You will argue until your mother is blue in the face that the 3 rules of the NRA are the cats meow.

Yes. I adopted what many hold as the "traditional 4 Rules" (the set that begins with some variant of loaded guns as the first) many years ago. Some time later, when I began instructing others in safe gun handling and marksmanship, I found alternatives that seemed more rational and efficient and really began to scrutinize and contrast the differences. Not everyone has done this and some seem to flatly refuse even considering such an exercise.

If their opinion is so strongly held that they refuse to reason or deconstruct what they adopted, there can be no true discussion. Those folks cannot move past their appeals to authority and personal determination to never abandon what they once adopted, as if it were somehow above scrutiny or refutation.

I will not argue against their sufficiency in text(right).

But I will argue against the "traditional 4 Rules" in text because that set places something before what should be the first and second most important items. If you do not argue or defend the positioning, efficiency or rationale of the traditional 4 Rules in text, you cede a great deal to my position.

I will, however, argue that until you have fully imbedded the human element the text really doesn't matter(witnessed effectiveness).

I am a student of the human element and witnessed effectiveness of various rationales and instructional methods. I am willing to have these arguments as they tend to help make the very case which swayed me from what I had initially adopted to something I now consider superior in every way.

You will remain a product of your environment(I cannot say what that is as I do not exactly know you)

My environment is dynamic, not static. I am always scrutinizing and refining.

...and I will remain a product of mine(a product of 241 years of warrior culture).

Warrior culture existed long before the revolutionary war. Are you suggesting that warriors should not scrutinize or attempt to refine any of the ideas and practices they may have adopted as their own standards along the way?

What is meant by "effective" is just simply what works.

That wouldn't leave room for sorting alternative ideas or practices from most to least effective. If you adopt the 5th most effective practice and refuse to consider other practices 'simply because it works', there would still remain 4 practices that are not only better, but also work. Does it make sense to stick with what you always did just because you always did it and it worked for you, or should you seek improved effectiveness and practices which might work better for everyone else you teach?

And what works, in this case, is what I personally have seen and employed with positive results.

Have you employed various practices, instructing a wide range of experience levels to compare and contrast? I have. Let's compare notes to see which we each found to be more effective and ponder why we stuck with one or switched to another.

Don't overlook the secondary and tertiary effects here. There are more trophies to be won here than simply debating which body of rules is the best-est.

Trophies aren't even on my radar, so whatever you consider secondary might be my primary

...quite similar to our rule sets.

If one prefers teaching others some variant of what should be the least important rule moved up above the most important, I just want to hear someone explain why (appealing to authority over and over is not an explanation or defense for this choice).

 

[hog slayer]

Yes. I adopted what many hold as the "traditional 4 Rules… I found alternatives that seemed more rational and efficient and really began to scrutinize and contrast the differences. Not everyone has done this and some seem to flatly refuse even considering such an exercise.
I concede that the 3 rules of the NRA make more precise sense. I do not think they make for a more effective set of rules. Either set requires that, at times, the rules must be broken to allow for some necessary function in handling firearms. I do not refuse to conduct the exercise. I refuse to alter my course based on a brief conversation within a forum into a direction that has not yet proven itself to me in practice, or been handed to me in some form of an order (not likely to happen, anymore. I might have to reconsider this).
If their opinion is so strongly held that they refuse to reason or deconstruct what they adopted, there can be no true discussion. Those folks cannot move past their appeals to authority and personal determination to never abandon what they once adopted, as if it were somehow above scrutiny or refutation.
You likely will find yourself disappointed with me. I have only enough concern to ensure that what I stand behind is effective and is not immoral or unethical. After that, I see the hill. I take the hill. You can be the guy behind the scenes that identifies and presents new information and someone else signs it into effect. Then, it gets to me and I accomplish the mission. Your desire with the 4 vs 3 rules warrants more attention than I am likely to give it within such a time frame.
Given the above, I am not sure that there is much left to be done with the remainder of your very articulate response. I will say that I understand an appeal to authority to be a fallacy because it’s based on another’s beliefs. Similarly, an appeal to an expert would be if I said I only approved of the 4 rules because Col Cooper said so. I’m confident that I am not at fault for either of those based on one factor: I am not presenting to you an argument for which is more clearly or intellectually written. I am presenting to you a reluctance to adopt a new set of rules based on years of application and thousands of shooters worth of experience. Mine isn’t one of infallibility, yet of excellence in execution. Surely you wouldn’t want a man in my position in this food chain to change course because someone else presented a new argument better than I, personally, had ability to defend.
Secondary and tertiary affects comment missed their intended mark. I only know pig Latin otherwise so I think I’ll let it rest.
Consider my accepted position in the pecking order: today I performed 400 pushups intermixed with reloading drills so that I did not do too much on a Sunday, yet maintain an effective edge.

 

[ATM]

Thanks for the convo. If you ever want to explore or discuss this further, I'll be here.

If you post any rule or mantra in front of the most important one, I'll question and ridicule it just to see who responds and how far they're willing to take it.

It's what I do.

 

[seagullplayer]

I know its not the cool thing these days and all the guys "in the know" consider it foolishness I have even been called irresponsible for doing so, but I carry without one in the pipe. And always will.
Most are even glad to show you a bunch of you tube videos "proving" just how stupid my mode of carry is...

Let them think it. They argue over the order of the rules.
How many of these stories do you read?

I agree; whats popular is not always best and whats best is not always popular.


Disclaimer: I not paid to carry a firearm as part of my job. I am not expected to chase down law breakers, I am not paid to protect and serve. If I where, it would change the way I do things.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

We shouldn't teach people to treat guns "as if they're loaded", when what we want is for them to learn to handle guns safely.

Doesnt treating guns as if they are loaded lead to safe gun handling? Seems like you made a solution for a non existent problem.

 

[ATM]

I know its not the cool thing these days and all the guys "in the know" consider it foolishness I have even been called irresponsible for doing so, but I carry without one in the pipe. And always will.
Most are even glad to show you a bunch of you tube videos "proving" just how stupid my mode of carry is...

Let them think it. They argue over the order of the rules.
How many of these stories do you read?

I agree; whats popular is not always best and whats best is not always popular.

Disclaimer: I not paid to carry a firearm as part of my job. I am not expected to chase down law breakers, I am not paid to protect and serve. If I where, it would change the way I do things.

You are free to do whatever you want and reap the associated consequences of your choices, positive and negative.

If you can defend the reasoning for the choices you make, they might be considered good choices by others. If you can't, it really doesn't matter how popular or unpopular your choice is.