Or what? Geez, put a smiley on it, or sue me. You made a silly comment, and I riposted. Using a strike face so it would be clear what you had said, and what I had changed. Politely. On a discussion forum.
Well guys, I guess when someone resorts to "ordering" discussants about what they can and can't do--including vague implied threats from a lawyer about the consequences of "unauthorized actions"--honestly fiddle, that's beneath you--the good-natured discussion is over (at least for that poster).
Let me just say that, other than that, I've enjoyed the discussion. I've brought this topic up before, and it has devolved into "you're an idiot" and "you're unsafe--your goinng to get someone killed." That didn't happen here, and I thank you all.
After sleeping on it, this thread can be sumarized below, IMHO:
I think Rule 2 and the 4 Rules could be improved.
What do you mean?
Well, they're not worded idealy, they have to be explained, I think we can do better if we try.
Give me an example.
Well, try this one here.
That'll never work. It's got this problem and this problem.
True. But the 4 Rules have problems.
No, they don't.
OR
So what? They've been around a long time. Even though other rules have been around longer.
OR
They were written by Col. Cooper. [Llyoyd Bentsen arrives.] I met Col. Cooper, and, member, you're no Col. Cooper.
OR
I disagree.
That last one, I respect--and it even puts this on the plane where it belongs, individual opinion. The other responses give absolute authority to "oldness"--but a very specific oldness--or to a great teacher, who's style is not for everyone; or simply claim perfection.
(Perhaps I should apologize to Mr. Bentsen's memory. I don't think I was
authorized to change his quote.
)
Meanwhile, there's been a side discussion of folks sharing their (very good to excellent) variations.
In any case, thanks, everyone. I've enjoyed the suggestions and the critiques. Just not the orders and veiled threats.
Press checking unnecessarily is pointless and a waste of time if you have faith in your own competence.
I would have phrased it "...if the gun is always actually loaded when you think it is." But of course, I'm not authorized to change that.
Keeping your phrase as is: Yes, I do
not have enough faith in my competence to
assume a gun is loaded when I need it to be (unless, in a shoot-it-now emergency, I'm forced to), or to assume it is unloaded when I need it to be (and I know of no emergency need of an unloaded gun). You may suppose my humility on these points is a fault.