Are Rules Rules?

[CZguy]

Shoot this thread, it's just suffering.

I know let's start a new thread about something that we can all agree on......like "What's better the 9mm of .45 ACP".

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Like I said, nothing at all.

If we are back to depending on common sense, it makes the Rules, well, unimportant--even fussy! Might as well make one safety Rule: "Make sure you use enough safety, but not so much as to be rigid or ridiculous." Great rule...but doesn't say much.

And I'll take Cooper's exception that if you're still holding a gun you just confirmed is unloaded, then Rule 1 doesn't apply--even though I had an ND in exactly that circumstance...

Wait...Does this mean you are an avid proponent of the absolute rules of gun safety, and a poster child of someone who does not follow them?

I for one, am shocked. In light of this new knowledge, I motion to dismiss the rules altogether, because clearly those that follow these rules (absolutely even) are not protected by them as clearly illustrated above.

 

[Loosedhorse]

"Semantics", no......a bunch of gibberish and double talk yes. You brought nothing of value back to the argument, but my impression is that you are in this for the "sport" of it anyway

Well, this post is harldy surprising from someone who A) didn't bother to read the OP and B) declared that all people who don't believe as he does are hypocrites, and promised (emptily) to prove it.

I guess that, given your already stated absolutist position (all people who think other than you do are hypocrites) you would have no choice, presented with a countering argument, except to declare it gibberish.

About "sport": stated a second time (why am I unsurprised you missed it the first?), I am in this to learn. Just, apparently, not from you. If I can have a little "sport" while learning, why not?

Wait...Does this mean you are an avid proponent of the absolute rules of gun safety, and a poster child of someone who does not follow them?

It means that I have been informed by a poster (dmazur--thanks) that Cooper himself listed an exception to Rule 1. I learned; changed what I thought. I think I know at least one poster who would consider learning an act of hypocrisy!

It seems to me the inventor (or chief promoter) of the Rules might know what he is talking about, so I will see if I can adjust my practices to include this exception.

I may not. As I said, we are all responsibile for deciding how (and how consistently) we apply the Rules. So, after trying the exception out a while, I may or may not decide to in the end adopt it--I'm not sure if it will change my behaviors significantly, or in a way that I like. But for now, I will assume that Cooper knew more than I do on this subject, and accept his words at face-value.

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with him!

Never fear. The end is near!

I picture Johnny in Revelationist garb standing on a busy Miami street corner carrying a Doomsday sign. Say it ain't so!

 

[Sam1911]

I think John Stuart Mill said it best:

"All action is for the sake of some end; and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are subservient."

Of course David Bohm said a few words which would work well here, too:

"Suppose we were able to share meanings freely without a compulsive urge to impose our view or conform to those of others and without distortion and self-deception. Would this not constitute a real revolution in culture."