Loosedhorse
member
In another thread, we were discussing whether the 4 Rules are always applicable; or whether there are always exceptions, and an expert knows when to disregard the rules.
My position is that the Rules always apply. If I may argue for my position:
It is true that the Rules require interpretation--go to any appeals court, and you'll find out just how much arguing there is about what rules actually mean.
Since we were talking about Rule 2, let's use that as the example. What does "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy" mean? A barrel detached from your gun has a muzzle--should we apply Rule 2 to that detached barrel? How about the imaginary gun I make with my fingers--POW! Would its "muzzle" be unsafe to point at something I'm not willing to destroy? How about a cased or holtered gun?
I have decided (for me) that the Rule applies to handled, functional, assembled guns that have their actions closed. And we already know (Rule 1) that all such guns are always loaded.
Once we (each of us) have decided what the Rule means, IT SHOULD BE INVIOLABLE. Otherwise, it is NOT a rule, and then it is worthless, IMHO.
Say another person were to decide that Rule 2 applies to all guns with their barrels in place; then he might decide only to check the barrel of a revolver with a mirror, or a scope of some kind. He might decide that he can't use (clean) revolvers without violating Rule 2, and therefore decline to use them. And that would be fine.
What he should NOT decide (IMHO) that Rule 2 applies only sometimes. And if you're an "expert", you know when those times are. And what I shouldn't do is tell him that there are in fact exceptions to the Rule, because it is impossible to examine the bore of a revolver or clean it without violating his Rule 2 (as it is in fact possible to do both), but lots of people use revolvers anyway.
What I might do is explain that if he gets an ultrasonic cleaner, or fashions himself a U-shaped cleaning rod, he can clean the barrel without pointing it at himself. Or ask him, if he gets a revolver from which the cylinder is easily removed (like a SAA), would that make a difference.
But whatever you decide Rule 2 to be, YOU SHOULD STICK TO IT. ALWAYS. IT IS A RULE. We have all heard of (and a few of us have seen) the results of not obeying the rules. And we are all tired of various "experts" (whether they are impeached presidents, disgraced priests, or incarcerated Wall Street tycoons) who "knew" the rules didn't apply to them, because they were experts.
There. If that seems too rigid, well, I'm just going to have to live with it. But I'd rather do that than break firearm safety rules or teach my kids and students that it's alright to break them, too.
So--what do you all think?
My position is that the Rules always apply. If I may argue for my position:
It is true that the Rules require interpretation--go to any appeals court, and you'll find out just how much arguing there is about what rules actually mean.
Since we were talking about Rule 2, let's use that as the example. What does "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy" mean? A barrel detached from your gun has a muzzle--should we apply Rule 2 to that detached barrel? How about the imaginary gun I make with my fingers--POW! Would its "muzzle" be unsafe to point at something I'm not willing to destroy? How about a cased or holtered gun?
I have decided (for me) that the Rule applies to handled, functional, assembled guns that have their actions closed. And we already know (Rule 1) that all such guns are always loaded.
Once we (each of us) have decided what the Rule means, IT SHOULD BE INVIOLABLE. Otherwise, it is NOT a rule, and then it is worthless, IMHO.
Say another person were to decide that Rule 2 applies to all guns with their barrels in place; then he might decide only to check the barrel of a revolver with a mirror, or a scope of some kind. He might decide that he can't use (clean) revolvers without violating Rule 2, and therefore decline to use them. And that would be fine.
What he should NOT decide (IMHO) that Rule 2 applies only sometimes. And if you're an "expert", you know when those times are. And what I shouldn't do is tell him that there are in fact exceptions to the Rule, because it is impossible to examine the bore of a revolver or clean it without violating his Rule 2 (as it is in fact possible to do both), but lots of people use revolvers anyway.
What I might do is explain that if he gets an ultrasonic cleaner, or fashions himself a U-shaped cleaning rod, he can clean the barrel without pointing it at himself. Or ask him, if he gets a revolver from which the cylinder is easily removed (like a SAA), would that make a difference.
But whatever you decide Rule 2 to be, YOU SHOULD STICK TO IT. ALWAYS. IT IS A RULE. We have all heard of (and a few of us have seen) the results of not obeying the rules. And we are all tired of various "experts" (whether they are impeached presidents, disgraced priests, or incarcerated Wall Street tycoons) who "knew" the rules didn't apply to them, because they were experts.
There. If that seems too rigid, well, I'm just going to have to live with it. But I'd rather do that than break firearm safety rules or teach my kids and students that it's alright to break them, too.
So--what do you all think?
Last edited:
