The Great NRA 3 Rules vs. Cooper's 4 Rules Debate

[cbhausen]

The other is simple.....people.

Rule #1) Don't trust anyone

I've been handed many unloaded guns to find out maybe the magazine was out but there was one in the pipe or vice versa; or people who say it's not loaded in general. Been swept by too many "unloaded" guns as well to trust anyone else but myself

For me, verification is the first step cause I don't trust what others may claim, and until I see with my own eyes I don't trust it.


However, like someone mentioned before. It's a numbers game. Accidents will happen and stupid will happen. Car incidents, gun incidents, power tools, etc. Unfortunate things will always happen, we can just hope to decrease the odds by education and people using their brains

If we do everything we can to make NRA1 and NRA2 natural, ingrained behaviors it matters less whether or not the firearm is loaded. We must manipulate (handle, pick up) the firearm to positively verify loaded status.

Would you rather be swept with an "unloaded" firearm or be carefully handed an "unloaded" firearm where the pass was made with obvious respect for muzzle and trigger discipline?

Theres a REASON NRA's 3 are ordered as they are. Safe direction and finger off trigger ARE higher priority than loaded status and MUST be observed before loaded status can be positively verified (or modified).

Verification is not the first step, safe handling before verification is. And THIS is what we MUST teach.

 

[rob63]

I'm with Snapdragon, they are trying to convey a mindset and are not meant to be literal in every case. Use whichever works for you.

Having said that, I am going to play Devil's Advocate regarding the idea that Cooper's 1st rule could cause someone to react with skepticism by pointing out that the NRA's rules have the exact same problem. Isn't it true that the NRA's 2nd rule makes it impossible to disassemble a Glock to clean it? Wouldn't that cause the same skepticism if you are going to nit-pick the rules?

All that is really necessary is for the instructor to convey the fact that he knows there are caveats to the rules, but that ingraining them in your mind so that they are habits will save you in those moments when things go wrong, whether due to a moment of inattentiveness or bad luck. Honestly, if a person is unable to understand the reasoning behind the rules and gets all bent out of shape because they can't be literally applied in every possible situation then perhaps they should take up something else instead.

 

[wtburnette]

I like Cooper's 4 rules, because I think they're better explained and go into more detail which is usually pertinent. I've always seen them with the first rule as "Treat all guns as if they were loaded", which is a better way of putting it. Following the subsequent 3 rules makes the first not as important, but the first thing you should always do is assume a gun is loaded. I have to say I'm fine with that. I really like how much more descriptive rule 4 is, than what the NRA rules cover. I like to have people who are shooting thinking about what is beyond the target, making sure in an outdoor setting, for instance, that there is a proper backstop being used so that you know the bullets aren't leaving your property and causing damage or death beyond the target.

I don't really like rule 3 of the NRA rules. I assume they harp on this due to loaded guns being left lying around for kids (and others) to pick up and have problems with. I would prefer the rule to be worded differently, something along the lines of "Ensure all guns are stored appropriately". To me, if you have kids, or others around who could cause a problem with a loaded gun, they should be in a safe, have a trigger lock, or something like that which prevents accidents. The gun owner and SO or spouse should be the only people who can access the weapon. This is something about gun safety I don't feel either set of rules covers and which should be covered. All the rules are is a way to get the knowledge into your head so you can always follow them, to ensure safe gun handling. This basically creates "muscle memory" in your head, the same way dry fire practice and practice drawing from a holster instills that muscle memory in the appropriate muscles. The rules, if followed appropriately, sinks it into your head deeply enough that they become the automatic way you treat the gun, so that even if you're thinking about something else and are on auto pilot, you handle the gun correctly.

 

[Mgderf]

I'm sure I'll catch flak for this comment, but I think the rules could be parred down to one.
If everyone kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, EVERY time, there would be no need for the other rules.

If the muzzle is ALWAYS in a safe direction, then even an accidental discharge would result in no injuries or death.
If this one simple rule could be observed religiously, the rest would be a moot point.

 

[EPeter213]

I'm sure I'll catch flak for this comment, but I think the rules could be parred down to one.
If everyone kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, EVERY time, there would be no need for the other rules.

If the muzzle is ALWAYS in a safe direction, then even an accidental discharge would result in no injuries or death.
If this one simple rule could be observed religiously, the rest would be a moot point.

I'm sure you will catch some flak as well.

i actually agree, to a point. Muzzle control is probably the single most important lesson I learned, and the one that sticks the most. I think trigger discipline is nearly as important, because there is not always a 'safe' direction.

I'll even agree wit wtb about NRA 3. This is a 'situational' rule, and doesn't improve safety because it creates a mindset that stored guns are 'unloaded'

 

[Snapdragon]

I'm sure I'll catch flak for this comment, but I think the rules could be parred down to one.
If everyone kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, EVERY time, there would be no need for the other rules.

If the muzzle is ALWAYS in a safe direction, then even an accidental discharge would result in no injuries or death.
If this one simple rule could be observed religiously, the rest would be a moot point.

How do you know what a safe direction is inside of a house? (Or outside of a house, for that matter?) It's sometimes impossible to know what lies behind walls or in the basement or in the yard or down the street. So with that rule being unfollowable sometimes, you have to rely on the other ones.

 

[jamil]

Thanks for your input. I never said anything about one cause or lumping things together. I'm not interested so much in oversimplifying the root causes of unsafe gun handling as understanding why we humans do wrong when we KNOW BETTER.

This could make a fascinating research study topic but I'm a product designer not a psychologist (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

I was just saying there isn't a silver bullet to solving the deficiencies of human behavior. I think the biggest challenge in teaching gun safety is convincing people that they actually need it, and that the diligent observance of the rules isn't overkill. To really answer the question, it kind of is a question of the psychology of human failure. To your point, I don't think we need to be psychologists to discuss this. But to get an answer to the root question a scientific approach would bring more insight.

In the other debates on this topic I mentioned it would be helpful if we had a study of the mindset of the people who've had NDs. Which rules, if any, had been taught to them? How were they taught? I think we would find that it wouldn't have mattered which set of rules were taught as much as the presentation, especially how well the need for gun safety left a lasting impression.

You make a good point, Jamil. 4 or 3, if the rules are followed, everyone stays safe.

I think that what CB is trying to determine is whether the way we teach the rules makes someone more, or less, likely to follow them.

Hickock45 teaches Cooper's four, and he borders on OCD when it comes to checking for clear in his videos. But...
in the same safety video, he sweeps his own arm with an empty gun as part of his demonstration.

Granted, he chose to use the air soft gun he had on hand instead of the more lethal pistol, and there was no ammo 'on set' when he was filming, but he still exhibited different gun handling with the 'unloaded' pistol. Why would he do that?

Please don't take this as an attack on Hickok. I am simply making an observation here, and asking you to think about the 'why'.

I think the people who think that teaching Cooper #1 has something to do with why people handle guns differently when they know they're loaded vs unloaded, think too much without evidence. It's fine to develop a hypothesis about it. But at some point the hypothesis needs tested outside of just thinking about it. Has Hickock45 ever swept himself with a loaded firearm? If we really want to make a study of it, it might be worthwhile for someone to spend the time to go through his videos and see. I think I recall some examples where I cringed at his gun handling, but that may just have been the awkwardness I've tried to program into my own behavior because of my forgetfulness. I'd like to find those examples again and really think whether they deserved me cringing or not.

Will presenting safe firearm handling one way or the other make someone more likely to follow these rules? That's the real question.

My hypothesis would be that how each of the sets of rules is presented has a bigger impact than which set of rules is presented. In other words, a very effective teacher could teach either set of rules and would produce safer students. Not because of the rules, per se, but how well the teacher imprints safety in the minds of the students.

Good point. I think it's up to the convictions of the teacher. You can sell either one if you believe in it.

Exactly. And I guess it is a sort of sale. You look at all the NDs, I'd be hard pressed to say that the lion's share of those didn't happen because the person lacked training. Look how many kids kill other kids, or themselves, because they were handling firearms without much knowledge about safe handling.

My wife lost a high school friend to that. The girl was at a party, some dip**** had a gun out on the table and they were playing some version of spin the "bottle" with it. That scared the girl--rightly so. Wrong corrective action though. She snatched it off the table to take it away from them, and tried to run out the patio door with it. She didn't realize the screen door was closed, and ran into it. She was carrying it with the muzzle up, of course her finger on the trigger. So when she ran into the screen, it kind of knocked the barrel towards her chin, her finger apparently squeezed the trigger. Bang. Dead. That was a real tragedy.

That kind of scenario is far more prevalent than NDs are from people who've actually been taught how to handle guns safely. And there is no wonder necessary about why NDs happen with untrained people. But with the latter group, which is really the subject here, my sense is that NDs happen either because diligent safe-handling was not impressed upon them, either at the fault of the teacher or the student. Some people, no matter how great the teacher, are just unteachable. Or, it is due to a momentary failure to apply what was learned. I mean, we talk about safe habits. Well, sometimes circumstances take us out of our normal routine, our habit, and the momentary dysfunction happens to align with unfortunate circumstances and bad things happen.

So it is the momentary failures that we're seeking to solve here with the topic of this thread.

Habits can be learned in ways that mitigate those momentary failures. I'm not sure they can be totally eliminated by training.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

NRA's rules ignore the fact that bullets penetrate. This is why we have bullets zipping through walls and doors and killing people in training classes because the ill-educated believe them to be "safe". Cooper's Rule #4 is far superior.

NRA 1: Safe direction.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My hypothesis would be that how each of the sets of rules is presented has a bigger impact than which set of rules is presented. In other words, a very effective teacher could teach either set of rules and would produce safer students. Not because of the rules, per se, but how well the teacher imprints safety in the minds of the students.

The teacher trumps the type of kung fu.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This debate is premised on the notion that Firearms Safety Rules only apply on a square range. They do not only apply on the range.

 

[Birds Away]

This argument is a clear example of the bad instruction that is out there. It isn't about which set of rules, it isn't about the instructor, it's about the student and how they learn. Too many instructors are "my way or the highway" kind of people. This leads me to believe that nothing is more important than their ego. A truly talented instructor will guide the student in finding what works for them. Similarly, they will guide the student to find the rules that will allow them to succeed and be safe. I get sick of all the chest thumping egomaniacs out there. It's about the student, dummy, not you.

 

[russc2542]

I agree that #1 is poorly worded to state that "All guns are always loaded" without the caveat "or at least treat them that way". Better to just say what is meant in the caveat: "Always treat a gun as if it were loaded".

Kirk does point out a glaring miss in the NRA rules (as far as literal wording with clear intent) with Cooper #4.

I do kind of like Cooper's more, even if #1 is iffy. The NRA rules are just kinda lukewarm I guess. NRA #1 is Cooper's #2, #2 is Cooper's #3, #3 covers storage more than handling and is obviated by others. and Cooper's #4 is much clearer and specific (and in Kirk's example, needed) and totally missing in the NRA rules but should always include the "...and what's behind it"

No to /thread...

Not enough of us follow the rules!

WHY???

And what can we do better to reduce unsafe gun handling? You agree we CAN do better, right?

Same with all rules out there. Some people chafe at any rule and seek to break them. Some people think they don't need the rules because they can do no wrong. Some people are new to it and forget or are inattentive. Some people are simply ignorant and don't know what they don't know.

I'm with Snapdragon, they are trying to convey a mindset and are not meant to be literal in every case. Use whichever works for you.

Having said that, I am going to play Devil's Advocate regarding the idea that Cooper's 1st rule could cause someone to react with skepticism by pointing out that the NRA's rules have the exact same problem. Isn't it true that the NRA's 2nd rule makes it impossible to disassemble a Glock to clean it? Wouldn't that cause the same skepticism if you are going to nit-pick the rules?

All that is really necessary is for the instructor to convey the fact that he knows there are caveats to the rules, but that ingraining them in your mind so that they are habits will save you in those moments when things go wrong, whether due to a moment of inattentiveness or bad luck. Honestly, if a person is unable to understand the reasoning behind the rules and gets all bent out of shape because they can't be literally applied in every possible situation then perhaps they should take up something else instead.

All fine and dandy for some of us that understand it but this country rotates around literal interpretation of niggly details. In just about every sector people will do anything with the defense that it wasn't explicitly stated not to. If common sense were common, it wouldn't need to be mentioned so often.

NRA 2 and Cooper 3 both prevent Glock disassembly.

 

[LarryC]

To me I have always believed in common sense - yeah common sense is not really very common! However, knock on wood, I am 76 years old, been handling firearms for over 60 years and have NEVER had an AD or ND. Unfortunately, every rule has exceptions (hard to believe right). The rule "never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you wouldn't want to destroy. Case in point, I purchased a Garand at the CMP in Fort Clinton, I wanted to inspect the chamber, bore, stock, etc.. In order to do this the rifle had to be pointed in many various directions. I picked up the rifle (muzzle pointed straight up), then actuated the bolt and (carefully) verified the chamber and magazine was clear. At that point while rotating the rifle, at various times I am sure it pointed in an "unsafe" direction! Same issue when cleaning firearms, Son and I always verify the firearms are unloaded to the point that if one has checked the gun and hands it to the other it is checked again! We quit checking only when the bolt is removed, during cleaning it is obvious the muzzle may point in an "unsafe" direction.

Another rule is to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Can't say how many times I have dry fired a firearm I intended to purchase to both verify the action and "feel" of the trigger. Again I ALWAYS verified the firearm was unloaded prior to doing this.

Another rule ~ always treat every gun as if it is loaded. Again, if we followed this rule to the letter we could not inspect or clean a firearm. I suppose an addition to the rule could be "until you have 100% verified the firearm is complete unloaded", but considering I have witnessed my nephew clearing a 22 handgun and then firing into the floor (a cartridge was not ejected from the chamber when he cleared the firearm), I guess this could contribute to an AD.

In any case I am not trying to be contentious, but trying to prevent any accidents (regardless of stupidity) by stating 3 or 4 rules is impossible. It does take common sense.

 

[T.Lex]

This feels like deja vu all over again.

 

[hog slayer]

maybe the idea is to be effective vs right?

 

[T.Lex]

How about this rule: don't accidentally shoot stuff or people.

I know, I know, too results-based.

 

[jamil]

I agree that #1 is poorly worded to state that "All guns are always loaded" without the caveat "or at least treat them that way". Better to just say what is meant in the caveat: "Always treat a gun as if it were loaded".

Kirk does point out a glaring miss in the NRA rules (as far as literal wording with clear intent) with Cooper #4.

I do kind of like Cooper's more, even if #1 is iffy. The NRA rules are just kinda lukewarm I guess. NRA #1 is Cooper's #2, #2 is Cooper's #3, #3 covers storage more than handling and is obviated by others. and Cooper's #4 is much clearer and specific (and in Kirk's example, needed) and totally missing in the NRA rules but should always include the "...and what's behind it"




Same with all rules out there. Some people chafe at any rule and seek to break them. Some people think they don't need the rules because they can do no wrong. Some people are new to it and forget or are inattentive. Some people are simply ignorant and don't know what they don't know.



All fine and dandy for some of us that understand it but this country rotates around literal interpretation of niggly details. In just about every sector people will do anything with the defense that it wasn't explicitly stated not to. If common sense were common, it wouldn't need to be mentioned so often.

NRA 2 and Cooper 3 both prevent Glock disassembly.

Each rule, regardless of which set of rules you're teaching, is just a memory pointer to a broader concept which must be taught. If these pointers were really all the detail necessary to be safe with firearms, a safety class would take 15 seconds. But gun safety classes take hours to unpack the meaning compressed by the pointers. So Cooper's rules 1 through 4 are explained thoroughly. NRA rules 1 through 3 are explained thoroughly. A well trained person in gun safety will be able to recite the pointers and the broader meaning. The information imprinted on the mind, pointed to by the enumerated rules, is the thing that allows you to safely disassemble your glocks.

Or, outsmart all that and just buy a glock that's a Walther P99 AS and use the decocker.

 

[VERT]

Ok I will share that I am an NRA Defensive Pistol instructor, GunSite graduate and RangeMaster graduate. Let's just say I am intimately familiar with both sets of rules. After much experience and reflection I have an opinion about which "set of rules" is better worded.

......................













In the end both sets of rules are the same. The difference is the context under which they are employed. Keep in mind that Col. Cooper himself heavily influenced NRA training in the 90s when the organization first started offering personal protection courses. Even GunSite courses have evolved over time.

 

[cedartop]

I'm sure I'll catch flak for this comment, but I think the rules could be parred down to one.
If everyone kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, EVERY time, there would be no need for the other rules.

If the muzzle is ALWAYS in a safe direction, then even an accidental discharge would result in no injuries or death.
If this one simple rule could be observed religiously, the rest would be a moot point.

I don't think you can go down to one. Too ambiguous. How about two? 1) Muzzle discipline. 2) Trigger discipline. btw, I stole that from Tom Givens.

 

[VERT]

I don't think you can go down to one. Too ambiguous. How about two? 1) Muzzle discipline. 2) Trigger discipline. btw, I stole that from Tom Givens.

I steal those as well. Really two fundamental rules are all that is needed and those look an awful lot like NRA #1 & #2. NRA #3 is added to give clarification for properly storing, maintaining, and handling firearms in a cold range situation. Defensive firearms are by definition in use and will be loaded.

Having worked with with several types of people over the years I can tell you not everyone understands conceptual or philosophical ideas. Also in adult learning we shouldn't tell people what not to do. For instance, don't jerk the trigger instead of press the trigger. The NRA rules are clearly worded with ALWAYS and then what to do.

I do not discount the 4 rules. These are lifestyle rules for USING a gun in the real world. As such they lend themselves for use on the range as well.

Ever wonder why the NRAs first rule for using a gun is to know your target and what is beyond? Hmmmmm. Wonder where that influence came from? 3 vs 4 are not different. There should be no debate.