Inshallah Instructor Injures Individual

[ATM]

Umm, no, I am not a 5 year old. Why implies that someone has already been shot because Mr. Embroidered Shirt has already waved a gun about.

Firearm safety is to prevent harm to the wrong people.

What you quoted was a suggested response to correct and instruct unsafe gun handling that hadn't yet resulted in any tragedy. Two guys were just playing show and tell. Go back and look again.

It is most certainly to prevent harm to the wrong people, their future victims. It is also the proper exercise by which we should learn from others' negligence after harm occurs and use it as a teachable moment of discussion for all rather than a mere opportunity to mock the negligent party with a non-instructional knee-jerk response that doesn't get to the root of their decision or help anyone.

Again, you don't have to adopt it, but you can't refute it's value or you would. What motivates you, Kirk? I love an argument even if just for the exercise, but do you resist this corrective and instructive approach for any real reasons I should be aware of? This is more important than role-playing on a forum so feel free to PM me if you actually have a point for me to consider. Thanks.

 

[BE Mike]

Unfortunately there have been such accidents in the past by highly experienced and skilled pistoleros. None of us are immune to it. Sometimes it's the familiarity that leads to carelessness. That's why we must be at the top of our game when handling guns.

 

[HubertGummer]

It's not starting an argument, at least for me, it's just asking me to rehash something I've already covered before in other threads.



No. I don't check to see if the gun is loaded first.



Looks like you jumped to a wrong conclusion there, but I also don't assume a gun is unloaded, it might be loaded.



Looks like you jumped to a wrong conclusion there, but I also don't assume a gun is loaded, it might be unloaded.



This conclusion strikes me as nonsense at this point, since none of your presuppositions were correct.

Allow me to explain: When I want to dry fire, I don't check to see if the gun is loaded first, I check that third.

First, I ensure I have a safe direction to point it and conduct my dry firing before I even handle it.

Second, I keep my finger off the trigger, because I'm not prepared yet to shoot or dry fire.

Third, I either unload it or ensure that it already was, remove live ammo from the general vicinity and possibly load it back up with snap caps.

Not much different than this past discussion in another thread, on cleaning a gun without violating the 3 rules for safe gun handling:



Please, let me know if you have any questions. If any of this doesn't make sense, I'd really like to hear why.

The point is, you would never pull a gun out and do a dry fire (or any non defensive use) before you check the chamber. Whether you assume its loaded/unloaded or you think it might be loaded/unloaded doesn't (shouldn't) change that.

I prefer to assume a gun is loaded so that I know I'll always check and I know I'll never take shortcuts due to becoming too complacent.

 

[BE Mike]

The point is, you would never pull a gun out and do a dry fire (or any non defensive use) before you check the chamber. Whether you assume its loaded/unloaded or you think it might be loaded/unloaded doesn't (shouldn't) change that.

I prefer to assume a gun is loaded so that I know I'll always check and I know I'll never take shortcuts due to becoming too complacent.

I have been handed many guns over the years accompanied by, "It's unloaded." Most of the time they are right, but "most" isn't good enough! Sorry, if I offend anyone by checking the chamber(s) visually when I receive a firearm. When they get it back from me, the action will be opened. I'm always expecting them to double check me.

 

[JettaKnight]

I really don't want to start an argument but here is my thought.

Before you do dry fire practices, do you not check to see if the gun is loaded first? Of course you do, because you can't assume a gun is unloaded....ever. You must assume it is loaded until you verify that is not. You can handle guns as safely as possible all you want, but there is no safe way to dry fire unless you ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded so that you ALWAYS get in the habit of checking.

Checking is not the same as assuming, but I get your point.

I check that the front door is locked at night, I don't assume it's unlocked, just that it might be, and follow a procedure.



All of these stories often come back to, "I thought it was unloaded!" So why do we stick to rules that make consideration for if the gun is loaded?

The problem I have with the Four Rules and your example is the mindset that once I disprove #1 by checking the gun I just picked up, I can now ignore the other three. I'd much rather have rules that don't have that sort of wiggle room.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have been handed many guns over the years accompanied by, "It's unloaded." Most of the time they are right, but "most" isn't good enough! Sorry, if I offend anyone by checking the chamber(s) visually when I receive a firearm. When they get it back from me, the action will be opened. I'm always expecting them to double check me.

Anyone offended by such an action is the enemy of responsible gun owners.

 

[ATM]

The point is, you would never pull a gun out and do a dry fire (or any non defensive use) before you check the chamber. Whether you assume its loaded/unloaded or you think it might be loaded/unloaded doesn't (shouldn't) change that.

I prefer to assume a gun is loaded so that I know I'll always check and I know I'll never take shortcuts due to becoming too complacent.

The point is, I gave a very reasonable, detailed and instructive alternative to follow which requires zero assumptions and offers zero excuse for making assumptions.

I find it superior in every way and am looking for any challenge to its superiority. If you, or anyone, are willing to provide such a challenge, even as an exercise, I welcome such discussion. I've already had several and doubt there's anything new I haven't considered or answered, but I'm open to the possibility.

 

[hog slayer]

The point is, I gave a very reasonable, detailed and instructive alternative to follow which requires zero assumptions and offers zero excuse for making assumptions.

I find it superior in every way and am looking for any challenge to its superiority. If you, or anyone, are willing to provide such a challenge, even as an exercise, I welcome such discussion. I've already had several and doubt there's anything new I haven't considered or answered, but I'm open to the possibility.

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.

 

[JettaKnight]

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.

 

[ATM]

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.

Starting with such flawed presuppositions, how could your conclusions make sense to anyone who knows or bothers to verify my history and experience in leading, to include leading others in the application of safe gun handling, regardless of setting?

Good luck.

 

[hog slayer]

Starting with such flawed presuppositions, how could your conclusions make sense to anyone who knows or bothers to verify my history and experience in leading, to include leading others in the application of safe gun handling, regardless of setting?

Good luck.

no worries. By chance, can you prove me wrong?

 

[ATM]

no worries. By chance, can you prove me wrong?

Yes, but it's better if you prove you wrong.

 

[throttletony]

Yup, I live in MI...
...smh

 

[HoughMade]

Yup, I live in MI...
...smh

At this point I'm thinking the negligent discharge made more sense than this thread.

 

[HubertGummer]

Checking is not the same as assuming, but I get your point.

I check that the front door is locked at night, I don't assume it's unlocked, just that it might be, and follow a procedure.



All of these stories often come back to, "I thought it was unloaded!" So why do we stick to rules that make consideration for if the gun is loaded?

The problem I have with the Four Rules and your example is the mindset that once I disprove #1 by checking the gun I just picked up, I can now ignore the other three. I'd much rather have rules that don't have that sort of wiggle room.

Why would a person ignore the other three after the first rule was followed? I wouldn't, and if a person continues to follow all the rules all the time, they'll be fine.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Why would a person ignore the other three after the first rule was followed? I wouldn't, and if a person continues to follow all the rules all the time, they'll be fine.

Seriously? That is what happens just about EVERY time.

"IT AINT LOADED, so I can do what I want with it!"

 

[JettaKnight]

Why would a person ignore the other three after the first rule was followed? I wouldn't, and if a person continues to follow all the rules all the time, they'll be fine.

You must be new here.


It happens ALL. THE. TIME.

It happens in print shops, in apartments, on ranges with bearded operators....


EDIT: You can't "follow" the first rule. "All guns are always loaded." has no associated action per se. It's a statement (flawed) of fact. If you rewrite Cooper's rules such that rule #1 is "Treat all guns as if they are loaded", then yes it can be followed, but then what does it mean? It's open to a lot of interpretation. One interpretation is, "check to make sure it's unloaded before you coonfinger it and wave it around."

 

[ATM]

This analogy upthread explained it quite well (and I've added it to my arsenal)

Nebulous mindset rules don't work at all for me. I'd rather believe in solid behaviors that can be verified through observation. Always handle every gun according to safe handling rules and you will never have a problem whether it is loaded or not. Implying that gun should be treated differently whether loaded or not is asking for trouble and leads to complacency and accidents. It's not hard to figure out. Tell a toddler something is hot when you don't want him or her to touch it and sooner or later he or she will figure it out and touch without consequence. Then when they do touch the hot stove they get burned. The "every gun is always loaded" rule is kind of like that.

Why would a person ignore the other three after the first rule was followed?

Because the thing they weren't supposed to touch isn't always hot and they know this. "All stoves are always hot" or "treat all stoves as if they are hot" set them up to go ahead and do whatever they want with the stove whenever they've convinced themselves it's cold.

Somebody should have just taught them how to always handle stoves safely and responsibly ...and most importantly, why.

 

[indiucky]

"Don't worry . . . eet ain't low-dead!"

You're wrong...Michigan people do not have my accent....

 

[myhightechsec]

I went last week to pick up our church sign.
I pulled out my wallet to pay.
It was a kydex front pocket wallet, not the type generally stolen by a ISP Trooper.

That opened the firearm discussion when he asked if it was kydex. His designer said I carry every where I go. I said good for you in exercising your rights. Then things went bad from there when he and the owner thought that day was show and tell day.

The designer unzips his backpack and pulls out his LCP to show me and was pointing it at the back of another designers head.
I said "You have that pointed at the back of your buddies head". His reply was "I don't keep one in the chamber"

I told him to get some training because you never point a gun at anything your not willing to destroy. He again goes back to the there's not one in the chamber. I ask him to put it back in the backpack.

The owner then pulls his M&P Shield from a desk drawer to show his prize perp stopper. I asked him to leave it holstered. He then says there's not on in the chamber

I had to get the heck out of there before I looked like Swiss Cheese.
I have to go back this week to get another sign. If any show and tell starts to happen I might have to repent for my actions.

I know you want to meet Jesus but perhaps not quite so soon, eh.