Tragic

[cordex]

It was absolutely a yes.

Excellent. For your students' sake. As I suspected, we disagree on very little.

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.

With the exception of the times you may have actually used force on an unsafe student, that's not showing them. That's establishing a good rule and then threatening them with violence if they fail to follow it. Even so, it sounds like an effective way of teaching the very stumbling block you rail against. Of course, one hopes it is taught in such a fashion that they understand that it isn't just the threat of violence from ATM that compels obedience to the rule.

To recap, you enthusiastically instruct students in the rule that even a positively unloaded gun should be treated as if it could fire at any time. However, a gun demonstrably cannot fire if it is not loaded. Why do you perpetuate deception?

You are fighting a holy war against your own doctrine.

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.

Okay, then back up your implication. Which deaths do you ascribe to people following Cooper #1?

I'm a few steps beyond you but I want you to get it.

 

[cordex]

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.

You are comfortable leaving it at implication and assumed understanding?

If, on the other hand, you are clearly instructing people that a gun may fulfill its projectile launching function at any time no matter what (even if they checked and it was sure-and-certain-unloaded-no-kidding-I-swear-honest) then you're teaching the same unlogical ilwisdom.

 

[ATM]

Excellent. For your students' sake. As I suspected, we disagree on very little.

And, we both want everyone to be successful, right?

With the exception of the times you may have actually used force on an unsafe student, that's not showing them. That's establishing a good rule and then threatening them with violence if they fail to follow it. Even so, it sounds like an effective way of teaching the very stumbling block you rail against. Of course, one hopes it is taught in such a fashion that they understand that it isn't just the threat of violence from ATM that compels obedience to the rule.

To recap, you enthusiastically instruct students in the rule that even a positively unloaded gun should be treated as if it could fire at any time. However, a gun demonstrably cannot fire if it is not loaded. Why do you perpetuate deception?

Why did you stop the back and forth conversation and just begin analyzing and concluding again? Your premises are not yet fully informed so your conclusions still suffer. Converse with me so we can both learn. You could ask my students, including other instructors, what further methods I use to ensure that they get it as they practice being successful under my guidance rather than simply waiting for mistakes to correct or threats of force to mandate compliance.

You are fighting a holy war against your own doctrine.

I am fighting a holy war against deception and death.

Okay, then back up your implication. Which deaths do you ascribe to people following Cooper #1?

Explain what you mean by "following" Cooper #1, first. That makes no sense to me.

That's the Spirit!

 

[Lelliott8]

You are comfortable leaving it at implication and assumed understanding?

If, on the other hand, you are clearly instructing people that a gun may fulfill its projectile launching function at any time no matter what (even if they checked and it was sure-and-certain-unloaded-no-kidding-I-swear-honest) then you're teaching the same unlogical ilwisdom.

No, but they already know that the gun is inherently dangerous. The question makes it a point, and draws out their knowledge from within themselves. Hypothetically, I suppose we wouldn't be able to move on if they didn't understand that the price of failing here is death, but I've never talked to a gun-owner or someone with an interest in firearms that couldn't articulate that a firearm can kill anyone. What follows then, is instruction and demonstration on how to safely handle firearms. Nothing untrue is said.

 

[eldirector]

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.

You seem deceived yourself then.

He very much intended to do what he did. Just (maybe / likely) didn't intend for it to end that way.

He did not break the 3/4 rules by accident. He was not negligent. He committed multiple criminal acts. The same as a crook intentionally pointing a gun at their victim and pulling the trigger. They new EXACTLY what they were doing, and did so intentionally. No violation of any "rules". Sure, they may be surprised that someone actually got shot. Doesn't change their reason to do it.

This wasn't a "if only he had followed the 3/4 rules" problem. This was a ****ty parent problem. Anyone who would point a gun at their kids has serious issues, and there is likely a TON of other crap that we haven't (yet) heard about. Good parents don't do crap like that, and don't need the NRA or Cooper to tell them.

 

[HoughMade]

for god's sake

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;AGUVP2iQinw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGUVP2iQinw[/video]

 

[cbhausen]

For those who throw up their hands and say "Here we go again!" please consider this... What we teach and how we teach it, how it becomes internalized or ingrained, is of vital importance not only to saving lives but also the maintenance of our gun rights. This is important enough to be bothered by or bothered with. Stop. Think. Challenge your own long-held beliefs, even if they have served you well up until now. Because we have to teach "everyone", not just those who inherently "get it". We can and must do better.

 

[cordex]

And, we both want everyone to be successful, right?

I certainly do.

Why did you stop the back and forth conversation and just begin analyzing and concluding again?

Your response was primarily a reiteration of the previous point (i.e. "I'll hurt you if you do something unsafe with a gun - even if you think it is unloaded"). Fisking is fun but I don't want to get repetitive. However, if you insist ...

Gun's only got one job.

"Which it can only do if it is loaded. If it isn't loaded it can't go bang no matter what I do with it."

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.

"So when ATM is around and threatening me to follow his rules I'll handle it safely, but when he's not I'll follow the natural, seemingly reasonable path followed by everyone who accidentally kills a loved one - that an unloaded gun doesn't go bang, and if a gun can't go bang it can't hurt anyone, so there is no reason to worry too much about where I point it."

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?

"What might be a safe direction for a shotgun or .22LR isn't necessarily a safe direction for a centerfire rifle, so 'safe direction' is relative. If a house is a mile away I might safely point (or indeed fire) a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot in that direction, but not a .30-06. A gun that cannot fire at all has an infinite number of equally safe directions. A gun without ammunition cannot fire. QED. And not even the great ATM always points his firearms in the 'safest' direction or he'd never walk away from the clearing barrel."

There are four primary reasons we treat unloaded firearms as if they are loaded and the "ATM (or someone else) might hurt me because they don't know it is unloaded" is exactly the least important of them. Using yourself as an enforcer is not an ineffective way of keeping it top of mind during a class, but is insufficient for the long-term.

I am fighting a holy war against deception and death.

False. You teach the exact same deception under a different guise and have concocted a petty squabble to fight against would-be allies in the fight against preventable deaths.

Explain what you mean by "following" Cooper #1, first. That makes no sense to me.

By his own admission he did not treat his firearm as if it were loaded.

 

[ATM]

You seem deceived yourself then.

He very much intended to do what he did. Just (maybe / likely) didn't intend for it to end that way.

He did not break the 3/4 rules by accident. He was not negligent. He committed multiple criminal acts. The same as a crook intentionally pointing a gun at their victim and pulling the trigger. They new EXACTLY what they were doing, and did so intentionally. No violation of any "rules". Sure, they may be surprised that someone actually got shot. Doesn't change their reason to do it.

This wasn't a "if only he had followed the 3/4 rules" problem. This was a ****ty parent problem. Anyone who would point a gun at their kids has serious issues, and there is likely a TON of other crap that we haven't (yet) heard about. Good parents don't do crap like that, and don't need the NRA or Cooper to tell them.

He was deceived in that he didn't think his actions could actually result in the gun doing its only job. He was incorrect and great sorrow and human suffering is the consequence of his improper beliefs, reasoning and actions.

It's roughly the same with any deception, but not all to this extreme, which makes this a good example to discuss. It's terribly disturbing.

 

[trucker777]

Such a sad story. I recall a song by the late Johnny Cash- about a young man who raised a rifle on a rider and not realizing the rifle was loaded then took the rider's life... or goes something like that.

I HUNG MY HEAD is the name of the tune, written by Sting and covered by Cash...

 

[ATM]

for god's sake

For God's sake, get up off the couch, expose the deceptions and start saving some lives.

Show people how to be successful and most importantly, why.

 

[ATM]

[video=youtube;AGUVP2iQinw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGUVP2iQinw[/video]

Try something new, B. You know I don't fear doing this to Clint Smith or anyone else.

Get Clint Smith in here, B, I'll politely teach him right in front of you, conversationally.

Anyone could.

 

[ATM]

I certainly do.

Then give them the most important lesson first, last and ALWAYS. Remove any stumbling blocks that would usurp this highest place of importance.

Your response was primarily a reiteration of the previous point (i.e. "I'll hurt you if you do something unsafe with a gun - even if you think it is unloaded"). Fisking is fun but I don't want to get repetitive. However, if you insist ...

Why would I hurt you or anyone else to fix your error, to stop the threat? Why would it be my duty to do so? Answer these reasonably and you'll begin to understand.

I will return to respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[geronimojoe85]

Wow this thread took an interesting turn.

Fact of the matter is the Dirtbag Dad murdered his 9 year old daughter.
Regardless of your philosophy or interpretation of the four rules, girl is still dead, family still shattered, and Dirtbag Dad still in the pokey, where we all can agree that he should stay for a long time.

Arguing what rules apply, and what he did wrong is really a moot point because the answer is, he did everything wrong, and nothing will ever change that.

Teach firearm safety however you want, but understand this was not a training issue, this was a Dirtbag being a Dirtbag.

 

[ATM]

Wow this thread took an interesting turn.

Fact of the matter is the Dirtbag Dad murdered his 9 year old daughter.
Regardless of your philosophy or interpretation of the four rules, girl is still dead, family still shattered, and Dirtbag Dad still in the pokey, where we all can agree that he should stay for a long time.

Arguing what rules apply, and what he did wrong is really a moot point because the answer is, he did everything wrong, and nothing will ever change that.

Teach firearm safety however you want, but understand this was not a training issue, this was a Dirtbag being a Dirtbag.

Nice excuse to loathe people who are or were deceived, discourage further efforts and never make an impact.

Don't worry, there will always be others who will expose and tackle the real underlying problems.

 

[geronimojoe85]

Nice excuse to loathe people who are or were deceived, discourage further efforts and never make an impact.

Don't worry, there will always be others who will expose and tackle the real underlying problems.

What the heck are you talking about?
Did you even read the 9 year olds account of what happened?
This incident had nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with what one man did to his children.

 

[ATM]

What the heck are you talking about?
Did you even read the 9 year olds account of what happened?
This incident had nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with what one man did to his children.

It's far easier to dismiss him, to hate him, than attempt to understand the basis of his terribly flawed reasoning for even considering doing what he did.

 

[eldirector]

Don't bother arguing with ATM. He is set in his ways, and enjoys the roll in the mud.

 

[geronimojoe85]

It's far easier to dismiss him, to hate him, than attempt to understand the basis of his terribly flawed reasoning for even considering doing what he did.

They teach abnormal psychology at just about any college campus...
Who can say why he did it? Obviously there's something wrong with a guy who thinks pointing a gun at his kids is a good idea.
Hell, Eric Hummel himself probably doesn't even know.