This IS a rules thing! This goes back to how we teach and why... We need to STOP leading off with ANYTHING concerning the loaded vs. unloaded status of a handled firearm and INGRAIN safe handling habits instead. SAFE DIRECTION and FINGER OFF TRIGGER are the FOUNDATIONS of safe gun handling.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Tragic
- Thread starter d.kaufman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- another atm thread boring
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This IS a rules thing! This goes back to how we teach and why... We need to STOP leading off with ANYTHING concerning the loaded vs. unloaded status of a handled firearm and INGRAIN safe handling habits instead. SAFE DIRECTION and FINGER OFF TRIGGER are the FOUNDATIONS of safe gun handling.
ATM,
Do you or do you not teach your students that a positively unloaded gun might still be dangerous?
When you instruct a student that a gun must always be pointed in a safe direction, have you ever been asked why? How did or would you respond?
What body count do you lay at the feet of following Cooper4 vs NRA3?
Do you or do you not teach your students that a positively unloaded gun might still be dangerous?
When you instruct a student that a gun must always be pointed in a safe direction, have you ever been asked why? How did or would you respond?
What body count do you lay at the feet of following Cooper4 vs NRA3?
I show them, teaching in such a manner that they may realize it for themselves rather than simply trusting me and adopting some rule.
I'll ask you, why would we point a gun in an unsafe direction? This is better interactive teaching. Continue from there if you'd like, back and forth with me. You will see.
There is no body count when either is followed, as both sets contain the one rule that prevents tragedies.
Yet, one set contains a useless stumbling block in front of that rule, the other does not.
ETA: Glad to have you back posting again, it seemed as though you were just waiting for my next advance.
eldirector
Grandmaster
- He kept his finger off the trigger until his sights were on the target.
- He only pointed it at things (people) he was willing to destroy. (He very much intentionally pointed that gun at at least 3 children)
- He positively identified his target (knew exactly who he was aiming at)
- He had JUST inserted the magazine and chambered a round (if the news article is correct at all). There is no possible way he did not know it was loaded.
He may not have really wanted to kill his kid, but it is reckless homicide at the least. Intentionally pointing guns at people, and intentionally pulling the trigger, will eventually get someone shot. This is simply how this works. You cannot play Russian Roulette with a semi-auto and win.
It takes deception to get us to do things we have no sound reason to otherwise do, to ignore what is simple and sensible and good.
eldirector
Grandmaster
Explain this "deception", if you can? I'm not picking up what you are putting down. Could just be slow today....
Who did the deceiving? Who was deceived? What was the deception?
Who did the deceiving? Who was deceived? What was the deception?
The deception is that we need a reason to keep guns pointed in a safe direction. Cooper's old #1 sought to provide that reason as a "rule" of its own which is the wrong approach, because you can't destroy nonsense with nonsense.
The truth is that we need a reason to point guns in an unsafe direction. Once this fundamental truth is realized, the unintentional body count will plummet and our culture will be advanced.
But, I need you to get it, to conclude it for yourself, rather than just believe me.
Is that a yes or a no? Sounds like a yes, but for someone who complains about Kirk not answering direct questions you sure do equivocate a lot.
Specifically how do you "show" them that?
Sure, I'll play:
Just a guy said:
You have repeatedly attempted in this thread and elsewhere to connect Cooper4 to deaths and have even stated that anyone who fails to toe the ATM line is perpetuating a failure and must then just watch the body count rise. Are you walking that back now?
A stumbling block you keep waffling between teaching and not teaching. Come on, ATM, do you or do you not teach that a gun can be dangerous even when positively unloaded?
No one needs to be told that guns can be dangerous if handled improperly. They need to be shown how to handle them properly. Coopers first rule is inherently untruthful and illogical, so telling people to mindlessly adopt it doesn't contribute to building safe habits. It plants the seed for confusion and misjudgment.
This is how I see it as well based off the media reports.
Out of curiosity, have you read the story in the original post? It seems to me
Lelliott8, when you teach others gun safety do you teach them that a positively unloaded gun might still be dangerous?
It was absolutely a yes. I let them know that if I see them ever pointing a gun, even a positively unloaded gun, in an unsafe direction, they have between the time I call it out and the moment I reach them to fix the error or I will, forcefully. If I am unaware that it is positively unloaded, they may not survive the force I employ to fix the error, for they are a deadly threat to whatever they are pointing that gun at from my perspective.
Gun's only got one job. If you need a reason to handle a gun safely, even when it's unloaded, I will give you one. You'll be lucky if I shout and you see me picking up speed in your direction, but I might just shoot you for the perceived threat you pose to myself or others.
Again, and to expand now, do you have a reason (a positive reason, even a weak one) to not keep it pointed in the safest direction available, to not create a safer direction to point it than is currently available, or to not handle it at all until you manage to come up with a reason?
No, Cooper #1 is the only component that perpetuates the deception, which is why it is being torn down. I won't be walking anything back.
I'm a few steps beyond you but I want you to get it.
It doesn't matter what you need, received or now prefer at the rule set or fundamental levels to handle guns safely when you are teaching others. It only matters that they get it, preferably on the fundamental level, and that those they will teach get it.
I want to do this with you, but I will do it despite you if I must.
I felt nauseous reading that article.
I don't think this is just a rules/training issue. He pointed that gun at each of his kids. "their dad had pointed the gun and them and pulled the trigger... prompting one of the boys to run away"
Sounds more like some kind of psychological abuse happening in that house to me. The whole story about trying to show them how to be safe sounds like nonsense, a poor attempt at a cover story, at least to me.
-rvb
I ask the person that has purchased a firearm or is interested in firearms if they understand the purpose of having a firearm. Usually there is an understanding that its function is to launch a projectile to kill a human being, an animal, whatever is in its path. The danger is mutually agreed upon, even implied, and we can move on to how to handle it safely almost immediately. What they need is to understand how to handle it safely, not be given some illogical unwisdom to later confuse them when the firearm is ACTUALLY unloaded.
