The 4 rules of firearm safety

Status
Not open for further replies.
azrocks

azrocks

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
659
Thanks to being in quarantine, I have some time on my hands. So maybe I can help some of the new shooters out there who may not have the benefit of experience to realize that the rules of firearm safety involve more than meets the eye.

We all should know Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of firearm safety. Here's a link to them in case you don't: http://www.donath.org/Rants/TheFourRules/

What may stand out to you is the fact these rules are redundant, which may lead shooters inexperienced (in negligent discharges) to conclude following them all to not be important. "If I never point a firearm at anything I'm not willing to destroy, who cares if my finger's on the trigger?". Or "If I never have my finger on the trigger, what does it matter where my muzzle is pointed?". Or "Maybe that firearm is loaded, but I just checked mine, so it can't hurt anyone".

I never had the pleasure to meet Mr. Cooper, so I can't speak to his motivation, but I'd be amazed if this redundancy wasn't intentional. Why is redundancy necessary? Why can't we just pick & choose one or two rules to follow? Because we're human, imperfect, and make mistakes.

Allow me to illustrate this point with an experience of mine I'm not particularly proud of. A couple decades back a friend and I were together, while I casually dry-fired in the direction of a nearby T.V. (Sorry, Mork from Ork. Nothing personal). The first thing I had done was empty the handgun, placing the live rounds in a designated location. So I knew the handgun wasn't loaded, because I had just unloaded it. I knew my target, it was Mork. My finger was never placed on the trigger until aligned with the target. And the television set was a 10-year-old 20"; I may not necessarily have been willing to destroy it, but it wouldn't hurt if I did.

As it just so happens, I did.

Click, click, click, pause, jabber, jabber, BAAAAAMMM!

It wasn't until our ears stopped ringing that I figured out what had happened. In the midst of our conversation, I had set the handgun down, while my friend picked it up to examine it. Unfortunately, he knew me too well, and - knowing I always kept my handgun loaded & chambered - he replaced the live rounds I had removed before setting it back down. I then picked it back up, assuming it to be as I left it, only to assassinate the most comical extraterrestrial visitor the world has ever known.

Out of all 4 rules, I had obeyed 3. Yet a round had been discharged and a television had been destroyed. Did the 4 rules of firearm safety work for me that day? YES.

Why? Redundancy. Redundancy is what prevented that CRT tube from being my friend or someone in the next room. Redundancy is what prevented it from being myself. Redundancy is what allowed me to make a stupid, stupid, stupid mistake that I'm quite ashamed to admit to anyone - as I should be - without loss of life as a result.

Now ask yourself what might have happened had I discarded one or two rules as unnecessary. What if I had decided that the rule requiring me to only let my muzzle cover something I was willing to destroy was pointless, since I knew I'd never point a loaded gun at my buddy? What if I had picked it up fingering the trigger in my lap since I knew it was empty? What if I never checked if someone in the next room over was in my line of (unintentional) fire?

But you'll never make a similar mistake, right? YOU pay attention. YOU are never distracted. YOU always check your firearm for clear each and every time you pick it up, right? Wrong. The only character in this tale who isn't human is Mork, and as much as it pains me to say it, he's not real. You are real, you are human, and the very fact you've made other mistakes in your life (right?) is proof that given enough time, one day, some way, you'll make a mistake with a firearm. The question is: what will the consequences of that mistake be?

That's the beauty of the 4 rules of firearm safety. So long as you endeavor to follow each and every one of them, at all times, without fail - then when you DO FAIL, the results will likely not be loss-of-life tragic. When you do fail in one rule, the others will be there to have your back. When you do fail, you may be ashamed, you may be ridiculed, and you may be replacing inanimate objects of value. But with any luck you won't ruin your life and/or someone else's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was fortunate enough to have met Col. Cooper in 2002 when I took my first class at Gunsite (the basic ;handgun class, 250). Jeff was Range Master (lead instructor) for the class. At his invitation, I spent the Sunday following class at his home watching the Monaco Grand Prix. I had my last visit with him when I was back at Gunsite for the General Rifle Class (270) not long before his death.

The Four Rules grew up on a hot range where it is customary to indeed go about with one's gun(s) loaded and where people are trained who will indeed have loaded guns out in the world while going about their normal business.

Gunsite is a hot range. When at Gunsite the pistol in your holster, or the rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder, is expected to be loaded at all times -- on the range, in the pro-shop, in the office, at lunch, etc. (long guns in racks are unloaded with actions open). So the Four Rules are posted on every range at Gunsite:

Real life in the real world is a hot range.

As noted in the link in the OP, Rule 1 is properly stated, "All guns are always loaded", and we'll see Jeff Cooper's explanation later.

In any case, our group of instructors (we teach monthly NRA Basic Handgun classes) find the Rule to be helpful and quite well understood by the complete beginners in our classes. Of course since we're all NRA certified instructors and we're teaching the NRA syllabus, we focus on the NRA three rules. But since we're all Gunsite alumnae, we bring up Jeff Cooper's Rule 1, "All guns are always loaded." This is how we explain it:

  • If you hand me a gun, don't bother telling me it's not loaded. Because Rule 1 applies, I won't believe you and will personally verify/clear the gun.

  • If I criticize you for pointing a gun at me, my spouse, my cat, or anyone/anything else I value, don't bother trying to excuse yourself by telling me that it's not loaded.

  • If your gun fires when you didn't intend it to, don't bother trying to explain yourself by saying anything like, "I didn't think it was loaded." You should have understood that under Rule 1 since it is a gun it is loaded, and you should have conducted yourself accordingly.

Remember that the Four Rules describe an appropriate mindset and attitude for safely handling a loaded gun, as well as specific ways of acting. Rule 1, especially, is about mindset and attitude. If you accept Rule 1, as stated, and burn it into your consciousness in that form, you can not hold a gun in your hands, believe it to be unloaded and wind up doing something dumb with a gun that is actually loaded.

It doesn't matter that Rule 1 might not actually always be true. That's not the point of Rule 1. The purpose of Rule 1, as stated above, is to define for you your state of mind whenever you have a gun in your hand and thus define how you behave with a gun in your hand.

If someone fires a gun unintentionally, he apparently didn't think it was loaded; but since the gun fired, he was wrong. Anyone one who uses a gun for practical applications, such as hunting or self defense, needs to be able to handle a loaded gun properly -- out in the world surrounded by persons and things that must not be shot.

Whenever I take a gun in hand, I know it is loaded and conduct myself accordingly.

Let's see what Jeff Cooper had to say.

  • Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 6 (1998), No. 2, pg. 8.
    ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
    The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.
    Click to expand...

  • Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, vol.9 (2001), No. 6, pg. 29:
    ...We think that "treat all guns as if they were loaded" implies with the "as if" qualification a dangerous choice of assumptions...
    Click to expand...

  • Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, vol.11 (2003), No. 13, pg. 64:
    ...A major point of issue is Rule 1, "All guns are always loaded." There are people who insist that we cannot use this because it is not precisely true. Some guns are sometimes unloaded. These folks maintain that the rule should read that one should always treat all guns as if they were loaded. The trouble here is the "as if," which leads to the notion that the instrument at hand may actually not be loaded....
    Click to expand...

Then as As John Schaefer, another student of Col. Cooper, puts it:
All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded."
Click to expand...

And at that same link, Mr Schaefer quotes John Farnam in part as follows:
...The correct philosophical approach to serious firearms training is the "the condition doesn't matter" method. This was first articulated by Uncle Jeff in his four rules, but all four can all be rolled together in the universal admonition "DON'T DO STUPID THINGS WITH GUNS!" The "hot range" concept logically flows from this philosophical conclusion. Now, we handle all guns correctly, all the time. We don't have to "pretend" they're loaded. They ARE loaded, continuously, and all students need to become accustomed to it....
Click to expand...

A short time ago I received the following (quoted in part) in an email from another Gunsite alumnus:
Negligent discharges that result in injury are the result of 1. IGNORANCE, and/or 2. COMPLACENCY and/or 3. HABIT that is inappropriate to changed conditions.

Proper training with the universal rules can only address #1 and #3.

...The great deficiency of much NRA civilian training ... is that muzzle and trigger discipline are not rigorously enforced except when on the range when the line is hot and sometimes not even then. Change the conditions to carrying a loaded gun at all times and adverse results are predictable.

EXAMPLE #1: Trap and skeet shooters often rest muzzles on their toes and point them at each other. They have almost no accidents on the range because guns are unloaded until just before they shoot. ...CHANGE CONDITIONS to a duck blind with loaded guns and the results are predictable....

One thing that Jeff Cooper said ... made a big impression on me. It is seldom repeated. To address complacency he said that every morning when he picks up his gun he says to himself "somewhere today someone is going to have an accident with a gun - not me, not today".
Click to expand...
 
I am all for redundant safety. Even use the concept outside of shooting. That said, if taken to absolutes I couldn’t build, clean, dry fire, install a suppressor or even unload and show clear, after all, it’s always loaded. :)

Doesn’t make them bad stuff to always have in mind though, I’d say conceptually sound advice, to minimize bad things from happening. :thumbup:
 
Grant makes a compelling argument why Cooper's Rule #1 is both unnecessarily redundant and how it causes problems with cognitive dissonance. He advocates for 3-rules he credits to Georges Rahbani.

https://www.grantcunningham.com/2007/09/the-safety-rules/

I have it on record that Jeff Cooper was a jerk, so I tend to disfavor anything credited to him. I remember being influenced by him when I was an adolescent reading "Cooper's Corner" in the back of Guns and Ammo at the library. The column seemed logical and well reasoned but I believe G&A's editorial standards protected readers from Cooper's asinine character, at least to some degree. He was a bigot, full of racial hatred, was prideful, arrogant, and a first class prick. Therefore I will never promote him or his disservice to US gun culture.
 
labnoti said:
Grant makes a compelling argument why Cooper's Rule #1 is both unnecessarily redundant and how it causes problems with cognitive dissonance. He advocates for 3-rules he credits to Georges Rahbani.

https://www.grantcunningham.com/2007/09/the-safety-rules/

I have it on record that Jeff Cooper was a jerk, so I tend to disfavor anything credited to him. I remember being influenced by him when I was an adolescent reading "Cooper's Corner" in the back of Guns and Ammo at the library. The column seemed logical and well reasoned but I believe G&A's editorial standards protected readers from Cooper's asinine character, at least to some degree. He was a bigot, full of racial hatred, was prideful, arrogant, and a first class prick. Therefore I will never promote him or his disservice to US gun culture.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, the point of this post wasn't to praise nor persecute Cooper. It's the message, not the messenger - as well as the practical application thereof - that I was hoping to convey. If what you say is true, it still wouldn't change the fact they're valuable words to live (literally) by.

As far as the cognitive dissonance bit, I just looked over the link you provided. In an effort to take as high a road as possible, the most I can say is I find that argument very far from compelling.
 
Last edited:
labnoti said:
Grant makes a compelling argument why Cooper's Rule #1 is both unnecessarily redundant and how it causes problems with cognitive dissonance. He advocates for 3-rules he credits to Georges Rahbani.

https://www.grantcunningham.com/2007/09/the-safety-rules/

I have it on record that Jeff Cooper was a jerk, so I tend to disfavor anything credited to him. I remember being influenced by him when I was an adolescent reading "Cooper's Corner" in the back of Guns and Ammo at the library. The column seemed logical and well reasoned but I believe G&A's editorial standards protected readers from Cooper's asinine character, at least to some degree. He was a bigot, full of racial hatred, was prideful, arrogant, and a first class prick. Therefore I will never promote him or his disservice to US gun culture.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this is off topic, but I’m not inclined to let this post pass without comment.

I’m not going to speak to Coopers mannerisms, I’ve only seen him in videos and not real life. But the guy was incredibly smart and insightful.

His “Coopers Commentaries” are full of very interesting banter. His recollections of history are remarkable and educational. He was a very interesting guy, and I am personally disappointed to have never met him. His teachings of Principles of Self Defense and the Modern Technique of the Pistol have served thousands of shooters well...as has his Four Rules and Color Code.

I have attended several Gunsite classes and had the pleasure of touring his “Sconce” and met his lovely wife, Janelle. At the age of 80-something, she was a spectacular hostess and a joy to listen to her stories.

May God rest both of their souls.
 
I became an NRA instructor to teach Boy Scout-age youth to become proficient with firearms and to learn to shoot safely.

The first three NRA safety rules are adequate for that audience, approved venues, and BSA's level of supervision during shooting activities. Even the developing brains of 12 year-olds can capture the concepts of muzzle and trigger control. But many have trouble when you ask them to deal with the sequence of when to load and unload. This is one reason why BSA shotgun shooting activities call for a responsible adult to load one round of ammo per clay, and to closely supervise the muzzle and trigger discipline of each youth shooter the entire time he or she is on the line.

I've always emphasized the core of Cooper's first rule as a preface to the NRA rules: "All guns we'll handle here today are loaded, until you personally prove otherwise."
 
You guys are just believing the myth and bought into a phoney legend. Suit yourself, but I would look a little past the propaganda before you bank on someone to the point you're promoting them. Cooper was a blotch on the course of firearms discipline in America and I will be glad when I hear less of him. Besides that, his methods, while popular for a while, all have superior alternatives, most of which preceded him. I conclude that he serves no purpose other than to give the US gun culture a bad face.
 
labnoti said:
You guys are just believing the myth and bought into a phoney legend. Suit yourself, but I would look a little past the propaganda before you bank on someone to the point you're promoting them. Cooper was a blotch on the course of firearms discipline in America and I will be glad when I hear less of him. Besides that, his methods, while popular for a while, all have superior alternatives, most of which preceded him. I conclude that he serves no purpose other than to give the US gun culture a bad face.
Click to expand...

I made this post to emphasize safety, and hopefully help educate new shooters who may not have heard of any rules of gun safety, regardless of author. Getting pretty tired of you taking a dump in this thread to air out your dirty laundry. You don't like the guy... who cares. Tell your story walking.
 
labnoti said:
Besides that, his methods, while popular for a while, all have superior alternatives, most of which preceded him. I conclude that he serves no purpose other than to give the US gun culture a bad face.
Click to expand...

Care to explain/expand on that statement?

I am not a very smart guy, just am wondering what your thoughts are...
 
I find this a very interesting subject.

Some rules are good for some people, sometimes, while others should be across the board for everyone that’s not you.

What has worked 100% during your lifetime, is just asking for trouble and children die from unloaded firearms, not just ones that are actually loaded...

I guess that’s why I play on my property with my rules most often, only has to make sense to me at that point.
 
We all need to get our bearings when we are getting started. Whether our guru is named Cooper, Smith, Ayoob, Harrell or Dad, the important thing is that we get started in the right direction and the message is repeated often enough that it becomes sub conscious. Redundancy is critical. Affection for the source of the rules is not.
 
azrocks said:
With all due respect, the point of this post wasn't to praise nor persecute Cooper. It's the message, not the messenger - as well as the practical application thereof - that I was hoping to convey. If what you say is true, it still wouldn't change the fact they're valuable words to live (literally) by.

As far as the cognitive dissonance bit, I just looked over the link you provided. In an effort to take as high a road as possible, the most I can say is I find that argument very far from compelling.
Click to expand...

very well said.

after decades of debate, I find coopers rules still perfect as written. The linked Cunningham argument is pathetic.
 
I have no praise or scorn for Cooper. He had a substantial effect on gun safety even though some might find his “rules” to be obsolete. I think they are exactly right. I always recall the first time standing for inspection in the Corps. The rifle was am M1. When the inspector stand in front of you you come to post arms, open the bolt, and you look into the receiver then at the inspector. Training for inspection was like all training in the Corps. You were taught what and how to do and why it is done that way.

When you stand for inspection your rifle is absolutely unloaded. Assuring that is the fact that you never have any access to ammunition except on the range or during a live fire drill. After either act all unspent ammo is turned in. At the range every round issued had to be accounted for. If your platoon was given 1,000 rounds to fire than 1,000 cartridges or casing had to be turned in.

So why look down into the receiver during inspection? Simple. We were taught to consider that ever weapon was charged anD ready to fire until we verified it that is was unloaded by our inspecting the weapon. Cooper was a Marine officer. He was trained to believe in Rule 1.
 
I teach a “train like you fight/use” method. So that boils down for students to guns are always loaded and improper handling is the difference between hitting your target or hitting your mate/yourself. There are no other scenarios or universes.

They all seem to get it like this.
 
labnoti said:
Grant makes a compelling argument why Cooper's Rule #1 is both unnecessarily redundant and how it causes problems with cognitive dissonance. He advocates for 3-rules he credits to Georges Rahbani.

https://www.grantcunningham.com/2007/09/the-safety-rules/

I have it on record that Jeff Cooper was a jerk, so I tend to disfavor anything credited to him. I remember being influenced by him when I was an adolescent reading "Cooper's Corner" in the back of Guns and Ammo at the library. The column seemed logical and well reasoned but I believe G&A's editorial standards protected readers from Cooper's asinine character, at least to some degree. He was a bigot, full of racial hatred, was prideful, arrogant, and a first class prick. Therefore I will never promote him or his disservice to US gun culture.
Click to expand...
I agree with azrock's assessment of your response. Those simple rules are what is taught in every firearms instructional class I ever attended.

Your link to the Cunningham citation is one individuals side of an argument and is a matter of his own opinion on whether it is right or wrong.

I have never seen any evidence to support your claim, or to backup your assassination of Cooper's character.
 
1976B.L.Johns. said:
Care to explain/expand on that statement?

I am not a very smart guy, just am wondering what your thoughts are...
Click to expand...

I'm going to answer this question while honoring the request to avoid the topic of Cooper himself.

I already offered the most comprehensive explanation of an alternative to Rule #1 with Cunningham's blog post. If we consider post #19 -- the example from the Marine Corps -- we can see they clearly do not follow Rule #1 as Cooper wrote it which claims that all guns are ALWAYS loaded. The Corps clearly requires disobedience to this rule as well as disobedience to the silly "treat them as if they were" pretend part. It's just complete mental gymnastic nonsense.

I also offered alternatives to the other three rules. Specifically, rule 2:
Never point a gun – any gun, loaded or unloaded – at anything you are not willing to shoot.
This rule is a sensical guide on how to treat all firearms, always regardless of the chamber condition and it more accurately describes the potential results: the thing being pointed at gets shot, not destroyed. If you've ever shot elaborate motion targets in a complex and costly course of fire, I assure you the rangemaster will appreciate that you do it without the will to destroy them. We often depend on guns shooting without destroying targets and other objects downrange.

Rule 3:
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until you are ready to fire.
This is superior for two reasons. First, it admonishes us to not only keep the finger off the trigger, but out of the trigger guard. Our finger should not be inside the trigger guard and pressed against the front of it to merely avoid trigger contact. It should be out of the trigger guard. Second, our sights do not need to be on the target before we fire as Cooper's rule 3 states. We very often shoot without using the sights.

Rule 4:
Know where your bullets will land and what they’ll touch along the way.
This is superior to Cooper's Rule 4 because it indicates that hazards can be anywhere along the path of the bullet. Cooper's version doesn't consider hazards in front of the target and the "what is behind it" statement may be interpreted incompletely. For example, bullets can richochet or be thrown back and land somewhere other than behind the target. I've had this happen several times. I've been hit by fragments, but I've also had whole bullets come at me, thankfully slowly enough that I could see them. I've picked them up when they were still hot. Someone might think of the backstop immediately behind the target without considering where their bullet will actually land. The NRA version reads, "Be sure of your target and what is beyond. Be positive you have identified your target beyond all doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area behind your target. This means observe your area of fire before you shoot. "... and what is beyond" is better than "what is behind."


Cooper is also widely recognized for promoting the "Modern Method." or "Modern Technique" Originally it was contrasted with techniques that were previously fashionable such as "Point Shooting" (the bastardized version promoted by Rex Applegate and the FBI), but even today it stands in contrast with techniques that have supplanted it:

1. A semi-automatic pistol of a large caliber.
More recently, 9mm (a small caliber) is more widely accepted.

2. Weaver stance.
The Weaver stance has fallen out of favor for the isosceles.



Here's the pistol version:

3. Flash Sight Picture. Cooper never completely distinguished this part of his technique. He contrasted it with point shooting from the hip, and slow, careful alignment of the sights. Exactly what else "flash sight picture" means remains vague. Either way, I can say it should be made obsolete in favor of reflex sights and threat-focus.

4. Compressed Surprise Break -- Again this is something the meaning of which isn't easily distinguished. In explanations of it, it often seems like Cooper is merely describing the single action trigger which fell out of favor with law enforcement in the US more than 100 years ago and has never resurfaced. Cooper liked it and he convinced a lot of people to carry 1911's. Besides the single action trigger, what else could he mean? Not disturbing the sight alignment while the trigger is pressed? There's nothing remarkable about that technique. Since it is hard to distinguish Cooper's trigger control method from his vague explanations, some might argue his method isn't exclusive. Clearly, the "glass rod" surprise break trigger has fallen out of favor for the mushy take up and squishy trigger of striker-fired pistols. Whatever Cooper was trying to say about trigger control is irrelevant.

5. Color Code - this is just mental nonsense. Cooper was never a good self-defense instructor. If anything he had a reasonable grasp on gun handling which he obtained from competition shooting.

I have elaborated on the superior alternatives to Cooper's rules and methods as requested.
 
Last edited:
labnoti said:
I'm going to answer this question while honoring the request to avoid the topic of Cooper himself.
Click to expand...
.

Amazing. Trying your hardest you still did everything possible to discredit the man, to include bringing up a whole range of topics completely divorced from firearm safety rules in an effort to paint him in a bad light. I'd remind you once again, for the 3rd time, the focus of this thread was meant to provide new shooters with a basis in firearm safety rules, but your ego just won't allow that to happen, will it? Thanks so much for your incredibly valuable input. I'm sure generations to come will remember you as the man/woman/child who hated Cooper the most. What an honorable legacy.
 
labnoti said:
You guys are just believing the myth and bought into a phoney legend. Suit yourself, but I would look a little past the propaganda before you bank on someone to the point you're promoting them. Cooper was a blotch on the course of firearms discipline in America and I will be glad when I hear less of him. Besides that, his methods, while popular for a while, all have superior alternatives, most of which preceded him. I conclude that he serves no purpose other than to give the US gun culture a bad face.
Click to expand...
I believe we're going to get along. :thumbup:

The main problem with the Cooper Four is that it exists.

The problem with two sets of standards is that in that case, by definition, there is no standard.

Mentioning two sets of rules to a twenty-five year old, highly educated, intelligent school teacher resulted in a confused school teacher who couldn't correctly state either set. (And I think she's still mad at me. But she's still my favorite niece.)

I'm particularly amused by Cooper's arguing with the semantics of "...as if...". That sequence pretty much sums up the entire state of affairs.

And finally, Cooper was a Marine. Nothing wrong with that. But if you're a vet, particularly if you're a vet of some other service, you can look and find how being a Marine, a Marine, and a Marine through and through affected virtually everything he produced at Gunsite.

What people forget about firearm instruction is that two separate, very different diciplines are involved.

One must be a subject matter expert, that is, one must be an expert at firearms. He could have been, I don't know, my experience with Gunsite was after his death.

Teaching, however, is very, very different. It is distinct and separate from firearms. The ability to transfer knowledge is an art. It is a skill that can be both taught and learned, but once learned, it must be studied forever, very much like a doctor continues to study medicine. I can't tell you how many stomp down, dead-nuts experts I know who know firearms from asphalt to salt, but trying to explain any of it gets them tied up by their blind spots, wrapped around the axle by language, and stopped cold by a simple, complete inability to teach. There are good reasons why you need a teaching certificate in addition to your degree to teach in the United States. The reasons start with the fact that whatever you learned for your degree won't help you teach that knowledge.

Not to mention that teaching is different from student to student, and speaking Greek only works with Greeks, and when you speak Greek to an English speaker, the knowledge simply will not transfer.

Teaching is also very perishable, almost as perishable as shooting skills. Stop studying, stop teaching, and you will lose the ability you had; first you will lose the razor sharp edge in presentation you had at the end of your last lecture, then you will lose the ability to take questions, and soon... Well, soon you will still be a knife, but paper, hair and silk will be safe from your edge.

Combining the two successfully, firearms and teaching, is very, very rare. There would be no room for anything else. For instance, there would be no room to be a Marine. All three take a lifetime of dedication, and we are only talking about one man, not three. Two extremely perishable skills, one man... the arithmetic doesn't add up.

And finally, the NRA's rules are designed for and aimed at hunting, including the Boy Scouts. The Scouts and their age was not and is not the driving force behind the NRA's curriculums.

Carry on.

P.S. when someone tries to lay down the law to me about The Safety Rules, I listen to see which set they quote, and when they run down I quote the other set to them. Because, thanks to Cooper, there is no standard, and that means that neither set is the last word.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Should rule two be revised or reworded?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
180
Views
8K
Kleanbore
K
K
  • Locked
The 4 Safety Rules
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
GunWares
G
K
  • Locked
Are the gun safety rules flawed ?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
5K
ctdonath
C
B
  • Locked
Let's make an extensive firearms safety list...
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
L
  • Locked
  • Poll
Are Rules Rules?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
4K
Sam1911
S
Back
Top