This is the premise I disagree with.
Repeating the "all guns are always loaded" thought is a conscious effort which defies reality and won't ever actually convince or embed itself in the subconscious as a reality.
Too much conflict.
The subconscious knows that the gun is sometimes unloaded and, in fact, often believes this to be the case (even if it also acknowledges that it could be mistaken). This is in spite of the conscious rote repetition that "all guns are always loaded". Nonsense says the subconscious with a wink.
I don't like fighting losing battles, especially with myself.
It's better for me to just embed the fact that safe handling rules (2-4) are to be observed for all firearms. When would I ever need to violate those rules? My subconscious shouldn't be waiting for an opportunity to ignore those rules whenever it suspects that the gun won't go bang.
Is it loaded? What does it matter? I'm not going to violate those rules regardless. They never become less important based on the actual loaded or unloaded state I believe the gun to be in. That's what I want to be thinking on the true subconscious level.
Practicing safe gun handling should not hang on the basis of ever convincing yourself of the same lie. There will come a time when you call BS on yourself and all that hung on the irrational belief will ever so briefly no longer apply. That's a dangerous spot to put yourself in.
Don't recall listing it as a premise. It may have been improper to express it in this way, as if to speak for someone else who changed the wording, yet that is part of how I understand it, and may have been better clarified as a possible benefit.This is the premise I disagree with.
Repeating the "all guns are always loaded" thought is a conscious effort which defies reality and won't ever actually convince or embed itself in the subconscious as a reality.
Too much conflict.
The subconscious knows that the gun is sometimes unloaded and, in fact, often believes this to be the case (even if it also acknowledges that it could be mistaken). This is in spite of the conscious rote repetition that "all guns are always loaded". Nonsense says the subconscious with a wink.
I don't like fighting losing battles, especially with myself.
It's better for me to just embed the fact that safe handling rules (2-4) are to be observed for all firearms. When would I ever need to violate those rules? My subconscious shouldn't be waiting for an opportunity to ignore those rules whenever it suspects that the gun won't go bang.
Is it loaded? What does it matter? I'm not going to violate those rules regardless. They never become less important based on the actual loaded or unloaded state I believe the gun to be in. That's what I want to be thinking on the true subconscious level.
Practicing safe gun handling should not hang on the basis of ever convincing yourself of the same lie. There will come a time when you call BS on yourself and all that hung on the irrational belief will ever so briefly no longer apply. That's a dangerous spot to put yourself in.
This is the most important point among several in which there is agreement.
I have always been told that the reason for each of the Four Rules is that for a gun to be used to cause negligent injury to someone or something, the violation of only one rule is insufficient. At least two must be broken to do that.
If the gun is always loaded, but never pointed in an unsafe direction, never with a finger in a position to pull the trigger, and always with a safe backstop, it will cause no injury.
If you remove that rule (#1), a hunter climbing a tree (up or down) could experience a discharge of his firearm by a twig (that is, not his finger) catching his trigger. Where's his safe direction? Up could be pointed at himself, down could be at a buddy.
A finger on the trigger isn't a problem as long as it's in a safe direction, right? Until your safe direction is no longer safe, by someone or something moving in front of your target.
Know your target and your backstop... Good thinking. These won't affect your firearm's ability to discharge, but they do address the possibility of unexpected/unwanted "targets" that could be hit by a ND.
I like the whole "belt and suspenders" idea. I told someone in a PM the other day, when I was asked about my preference for external safeties on a handgun, the same thing. *I* am the safety, but I neither rely totally on myself nor on the mechanical safety on my gun. Should it fail, my actions are still going to be safe. Should I slip in my obsessive awareness of my muzzle direction for a moment, I want the mechanical backup.
The same logic applies: If I have a gun on me that, fired, could have fatal effect, I want as many things between "safe" and ND as I can put there, without compromising my ability to use it as it was intended to be used. The only time I want to look down a gun barrel is when I have the gun disassembled. I won't even do it with a chamber flag in place, and I'm leery of doing it even with the gun apart... It just feels wrong to me. So far, that has stood me in good stead. Every day I break my personal record of consecutive days alive and unshot.
For those who don't like Rule #1, that's your choice. Some people don't like external safeties... that also is your choice, if you don't. I hope and pray that your choices do not ever come back and bite you by causing injury to anyone, including yourselves.
Blessings,
Bill
