Are the gun safety rules flawed ?

[sugar2xs]

"Do it for the children. Think of the children!"

You are right, that's most people's argument for gun control or safety. I saw on the news where a ten year old got her parents keys and went for a joy ride. Did she do it because she wasn't taught that a car in the hands of a ten year old is dangerous or because the keys were accessable to her or both? Same thing with hand guns, my 15 year old has his own .22 rifle and it stays unloaded and in my closet. He never, ever touches it without asking myself or my husband to get it for him and has adult supervision while having it, loaded or not. We took him out as a small child and shot fruit and showed him the damage that a gun can do he full well understands how seriuos these weapons are. I have have two boys and neither are allowed or have ever been allowed to play with toy guns. I don't mean to ramble but I am passionate about this subject. If the person in the first post is being genuine with concerns then great they should be addressed and if they are earnest maybe some of the things writtend in this post will help them have a better view.

You can sit around and make rules until you pass out but if no one has the sense to heed the warnings that are being given no amount of rules will help them.

 

[JohnKSa]

Flawed approach.

As it currently stands, the ONLY way to have a negligent discharge is to disregard one or more of the existing gun safety rules.

Since NDs are the result of disregarding current safety rules, adding more safety rules can not possibly help.

 

[XavierBreath]

The Lee Paige School of Handgunnery

"And see, I got these guns I want to talk to you guys about. I got a whole lot more to tell you but I don't have a whole lot of time. I got these guns. I have a gun on my side right here. Just this week at the beginning of the week, a young boy not even 16 years old was killed because he was playing with a gun. And see? This is an unloaded gun. Right here (unintelligible) Empty weapon. Empty weapon. This is a Glock 40. Fifty Cent, Too Short, all of them talk about a Glock 40. OK. I'm the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to carry a Glock 40. I'm the on....." BLAM!

This video is all about Rule #1, but it could also be about Rule #2 and Rule #3. The rules work if you follow them.

 

[gearbox]

AD/NDs are only possible if one of the rules are broken. Revising the rules won't change the fact that a discharge was caused by gross negligence and inadherence to a rule.

For instance: Murder is against the law. Someone kills a man, the rule is not at fault. Adding another rule won't change it.

Also, adding more rules complicates things. It is ingenious that the four rules are simple, understandable, and easy to memorize. Your amendment is none of the above, and could contribute to an increase in NDs because it is not straighforward.

 

[TomN]

For instance: Murder is against the law. Someone kills a man, the rule is not at fault. Adding another rule won't change it.

And this is EXACTLY why more gun control laws won't work.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

 

[Croyance]

The flaw is that people do not follow rules, or think about what they mean.
The basic assumption is that all guns are loaded and dangerous, so act accordingly.
Rule 1 says outright that runs are loaded. So don't assume or rely on other people or your memory. Check, check again, and recheck. Even then, assume they are loaded. A lot of people murdered with guns they "knew" were unloaded.
Therefore, they can discharge and damage/destroy anything in the direction they are pointed at, rule 2.
So don't point it at anything until you have it pointed at something you are willing to destroy. Rule 3.
Of course, make sure it is what you think it is, rule 4.

 

[BluesBear]

The Four Rules and just fine as they stand. There is no need to "improve" them.

Every single Negligent Discharge (key word Negligent) described by our new member violated at least one of those rules.

Even in the extrremely rare event of a true mechanical failure, obeying The Four Rules will prevent unintentional damage or injury.

 

[Working Man]

Even in the extrremely rare event of a true mechanical failure, obeying The Four Rules will prevent unintentional damage or injury.

Hit the nail square on the head.

 

[DunedinDragon]

The error in the safety rules isn't in the rules itself, it's in the following of the rules. It's kind of like gun control. If you don't enforce the laws you have regarding gun control, what makes you think adding more laws will make things better? Or immigration...you can't enforce current immigration laws so develop some more that you won't be able to enforce....

It's not about the rules, it's about the enforcement

I liken it to the "educated" fools in the computer business who think developing a 2,000 volume methodology on how to successfully develop software projects will "GUARANTEE" a success. Nothing that involves human interaction is guaranteed, because people are not 100% predictable. Machines, for the most part, are.

In my mind there are three personal guiding principles, not rules, that I follow:

#1) It's my gun. I am responsible for it 24 x 7, no excuses. I am responsible for maintaining my proficiency with it, and understanding it mechanically. If I loan it to someone I'm responsible. I know where it's at and the condition it is in at all times. If it's not being used I am responsible to make sure it's not available to anyone other than myself. I am responsible for it 100% of the time, no exceptions.

#2) Because of guideline #1 and the inherent failures of human nature, it is in my best interest to develop my personal safety procedures for how my guns will be handled and stored. Once I'm sure of my procedures, I will follow them to the letter every time I deal with any of my guns, and I will inform and expect anyone else that comes into contact with my guns to do exactly the same.

#3) NEVER make any assumption about the state of ANY gun.

Now below these three guidelines are the personal rules I follow which include the four basic rules, plus a few others such as ALL LOADED GUNS MUST BE IN A HOLSTER UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY BEING USED.

To me it's more important to focus on the real problem here, which is the human, and developing a mindset about gun handling...not just blind rules.

 

[waterhouse]

First, Welcome to The High Road.

As for your argument,

The main problem with these rules is that they do not acknowledge that humans make mistakes (and guns can have mechanical failures) : a finger can slip and press the trigger, an external safety can be disconnected (and we think and act assuming it is still on), a thumb can slip while decocking a gun, the trigger might get pressed when holstering/unholstering, a round can be in the chamber even after we are "sure" the gun is empty, dry firing (and/or cleaning) a supposedly unloaded gun… racking the slide with the finger in the trigger… slam fire, mechanical failure in the decocking system, … etc, etc…

If you read carefully, you can notice that none of these potential 'deadly' scenarios are covered by the 'gun safety rules'

Please explain to me how any of your "deadly" scenarios are not covered by the 4 safety rules.


I'll take them one at a time:

a finger can slip and press the trigger

This would be a violation of rule 3, but even then you are OK, because this would be covered by Rule 2. If the gun is pointed in a safe direction, the outcome is not deadly.

an external safety can be disconnected (and we think and act assuming it is still on)

Again, if the gun is pointed in a safe direction, there is no deadly scenario here.

a thumb can slip while decocking a gun

Once again, if the gun is pointed in a safe direction, there is no deadly scenario here.

the trigger might get pressed when holstering/unholstering

This is a direct violation of rule 3.

a round can be in the chamber even after we are "sure" the gun is empty, dry firing (and/or cleaning) a supposedly unloaded gun

Both of theses are covered by rule 1, and even if rule 1 is broken there will not be a deadly scenario if rule 2 is followed.

racking the slide with the finger in the trigger

Once again, this is in direct violation of Rule 3, and once again, even if that rule is broken it is backed up by Rule 2.

slam fire, mechanical failure in the decocking system

And this is why, to me, Rule 2 is the most important. A gun is a mechanical device that can fail. So long as it is always pointed in a safe direction, it can fail without there being a "deadly scenario."

You stated:

If you read carefully, you can notice that none of these potential 'deadly' scenarios are covered by the 'gun safety rules'

If you read carefully, you'll notice that AD/ND are possible, but that if the 4 rules are followed none of them will ever result in "deadly scenarios".

 

[unspellable]

AD?

Two ADs in my experience.

First case: I loaned my college buddy my Winchester Model 1894 and we went deer hunting. At noon break we came out of the woods on a dirt road and my buddy begins to rack the Winchester to empty it. The lever picked up the tail of his sweat shirt, wrapped it around the trigger and planted a bullet in the dirt about five feet in front of him.

Second case: Years later I was out in the hay field and had a S&W Model 41 in a duck holster meant for a Webley Mk VI, a some what loose fit. The holster was on the truck seat, the magazine loaded but chamber empty. On getting back to the farm yard I reached into the cab and pulled the holster out and dropped the pistol. It landed butt first. After bemoaning the chip in the wood work I removed the magazine, emptied it and put it back in, pointed the pistol at the ground and pulled the trigger. You guessed it, another hole in the ground. Now I KNOW the chamber was empty. The explanation here is the the pistol landed butt first hard enough to rack the breech block and pick up a round. (Probably wouldn't happen with a center fire pistol due to the stiffer spring.)

Both cases saved by the keep it pointed in a safe direction rule. In the second case you might make the argument that I should have checked the chamber before pulling the trigger. But I'm not sure where any of the four rules were violated in the first instance. Which to my mind is why there are four rules, if one fails you hope another one of them will save the day.

 

[SAWBONES]

Simple all-encompassing gun safety rule:
"Don't do dumb things with guns."

An encyclopedic list is neither necessary nor helpful, and even the classic "Four Rules" cannot always apply or be obeyed in all times and circumstances. (If Rule One were always and at all times true, we could never practice dry-firing or gun cleaning. If Rule Two were always true, we could rarely or never carry, handle, clean or even store guns.)

There is perhaps a conceptual difference between "combat" gun handling and "administrative" gun handling, and the Four Rules seem to apply predominantly to "combat" handling, though no thoroughgoing distinction is possible, of course.

 

[dfaugh]

Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.

This is THE pivotal rule (I won't say most important as all are equally important)...As long as this is followed, even other errors or mechanical failures can occur w/ no harm done. My .02

(P.S. Yes guns are inherently dangerous, but no more so, and probably less so than many other tools/objects...My table saw for example, cost me several bits of my right hand. I don't know any "older guys" that haven't lost a piece or 2, or had a significant accident, or multiple close calls if they've worked around machinery much of their lives. I know LOTS of older guys that have spent much of their lives around guns, with none of the above)

 

[jashobeam]

Now below these three guidelines are the personal rules I follow which include the four basic rules, plus a few others such as ALL LOADED GUNS MUST BE IN A HOLSTER UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY BEING USED.

I do this, too! Which is why I am growing impatient for the arrival of a holster for my CZ P-01.

My Glock, which has no external safety (Please, no one correct me by referencing the trigger "safety") is kept safely loaded with one in the chamber, inside a holster with a retention strap, in my bed next to me. I have slept like this for years.

To clean or transport my Glock 17, I remove the magazine, remove the gun from the holster and IMMEDIATELY turn the gun over so that the ejection port faces downward and rack the slide to eject the round, secure the ejected cartridge and place it next to the magazine, lock the slide open, look inside the gun and stare at the empty chamber and empty magazine well, close the slide, reopen it and double check the chamber and magazine well.

I go through this routine with strict obedience to the FOUR RULES.

The California hands-on demonstration required for anyone purchasing a handgun has the purchaser "visually and physically" inspect the chamber to make certain that it is unloaded. I typically do not practice this method of placing my finger inside the chamber. I examine the chamber by looking into it and not just casually at it. I am not just going through the motions, but am mindfully trying to determine if my gun is in fact unloaded.

 

[raz-0]

I didn't read through all of karhu's quoted examples, but I'd suspect that he is reaching back past sensible definitions of recently, and also point out that you are aggregating THOUSANDS of gun owners' lifetime experiences in a very small space while ignoring the huge number of times the rules worked out just dandy. I'd also suggest, after reading through many of the quoted examples that each one violated one or more of the 4 rules.

Making more rules when the originals weren't being followed doesn't exactly sound to me like it will work.

The number of times I saw "I didn't check" or "I assumed" or their equivalent in the examples provided just points out why hereabouts we refer to them as negligent discharges. Someone didn't hold up their end of the safety equation.

which leads me to one of my favorite saying that I have no idea where it came from: "For every new 'fool proof' invention there is a new and improved fool to go along with it."

 

[cambeul41]

This is paraphrased from an article on small aircraft design...

The four rules are fool proof, but nothing is damn fool proof.

 

[Zak Smith]

Rule 5: Do not ND.

Oh wait....

 

[Nightfall]

I'm all for not addin' to the Four. Part of the reason is that due to their short and simple manner, they are easy to teach to newbies and even easier to remember. Add needless rules and it quickly becomes easy to overwhelm new shooters, perhaps making them forget more vital safety rules while they try to remember some wordy, more obscure one. Heck, you can even distill the Four down to one word each to make it even easier to recall. Loaded. Muzzle. Finger. Target. That's how I remember them.

 

[Sephiroth]

This guy isn't for real.

 

[Limeyfellow]

No matter the tool or device someone can always screw it up and there are always stupid people. You get people who are driving cars and can run over people and drive for four miles with them in the windowshield or under the car and not notice and we never talk about cars the way firearms are talked about. Theres an element of risk with everything and no cure for idiot people or freak accidents. The rules require a little common sense.

 

[akodo]

The main problem with these rules is that they do not acknowledge that humans make mistakes (and guns can have mechanical failures) : a finger can slip and press the trigger, an external safety can be disconnected (and we think and act assuming it is still on), a thumb can slip while decocking a gun, the trigger might get pressed when holstering/unholstering, a round can be in the chamber even after we are "sure" the gun is empty, dry firing (and/or cleaning) a supposedly unloaded gun… racking the slide with the finger in the trigger… slam fire, mechanical failure in the decocking system, … etc, etc…

If you read carefully, you can notice that none of these potential 'deadly' scenarios are covered by the 'gun safety rules'

I disagree. The 4 rules cover all of these.

"a finger can slip and press the trigger" - except the gun is unloaded, and is pointed in a safe direction, so no one is harmed

"an external safety can be disconnected " - except the finger is off the trigger, the gun is unloaded, and pointed in a safe direction, so no one is harmed

"a thumb can slip while decocking a gun" - except the gun is pointed in a safe direction, so on one is harmed

These show how the rules overlap, but are legitemate concerns. They show why all safty rules must be followed

Now, the following examples are simply lists of people ignoring one of the 4 rules. No matter what list of rules you have, if your scenario entails people ignoring one or more of them, you have accidents. This is not a flaw of the rules, but of those who fail to follow the rules. Yes, if you break all 4 rules, people are liable to get hurt....but then, that's why we try not to break them.
"the trigger might get pressed when holstering/unholstering," - trigger cannot get pressed if the finger is not on it, so this is simply a violation, not an 'accident', besides, holstering should be done being aware of muzzle direction, so again, no harm

"a round can be in the chamber even after we are "sure" the gun is empty" -again, failure to follow rules (feel in chamber for round), also a loaded gun with a chambered round, no finger on trigger, gun pointed in safe direction. so again, no harm

"dry firing (and/or cleaning) a supposedly unloaded gun" - again purposely violating the rules, but good thing with muzzle control no one gets hurt, and when cleaning the finger is off the trigger, so no one gets hurt.

"racking the slide with the finger in the trigger" - again, voilating a rule, but good thing the gun is pointed in a safe direction, so again, no harm.

"slam fire," - violation of rules agian, but good thing gun is pointed in safe direction, so no harm.

"mechanical failure in the decocking system" - are we assuming violation of the loaded firearm rule? that's the only way this could cause a problem, but even then, good thing the gun is pointed in a safe direction. If anything this is an example of why ALL 4 rules must be followed. People get sloppy and think the decocker will work, but if it fails, the 4 rules will keep everyone safe.


Regarding your new list.

#1 - does not cover enough catagories. There are many times besides dryfiring when people are working with guns. 'NO DRYFIRING' doesn't protect someone moving a gun across a barbed wire fence, but the 'treat all guns like they are loaded' does. (meaning you are very aware which direction the muzzle is pointed, watch for any chance a wire can catch the trigger, even though you are sure the gun is unloaded, just incase you are wrong)

#3 - basically restates the standard rule with one extra irrelant clause thrown in for one specific type of firearm. What about single shot or double barreled guns, or revolvers? Plus this concept of not chambering a round messes with the rules of 'always consider a gun loaded' when you get into the catagory of 'half loaded' guns. The assumption that the chamber is empty is probably the biggest reason guns fire accidentally, but standard rule #1 covers them just fine. Your new rule #1 and #3 leaves a lot of situations where there are dangerous conditions not covered

#5 - why does it matter if gun is holstered or not, when the standard 4 on their own work just fine. Also, too many times when you have to unholster your gun, not just cleaning, target practice, or home defense. What about repair, inspection for damage, moving handgun from body to safe, moving handgun from body to case in car, examining handgun before purchase, etc etc. Also, this does not cover guns where no holster is available (like rifles and shotguns)

See, the standard 4 are really a beautiful set in how they cover ALL types of firearms in ALL conditions. Your attempt to build a set around just handguns and just certain circumstances leaves too much unconsidered, and allows for dangerous situations your rules are simply silent on.

 

[akodo]

thanks for your comments.

i think everybody is entitled to his own opinion, and mine says that something must be wrong with these rules for so many AD/ND to happen


here is a collection of AD/ND (collected from just a few threads in this forum)

In your entire list, there is not ONE example of someone obeying all 4 rules and STILL having an AD/ND. Also note that in none of the first batch (sorry didn't read them all) no one was killed or harmed because SOME of the rules were followed, making these negligent discharges harmless, thankfully.

The problem then isn't the rules, but the ability of people to follow.

Now lets say we just teach your 5 rules, these AD/NDs would still have happened because people were breaking rules.

Your link to the guy playing WOW. I smell bull$h....

No one is going to let another guy into their bathroom where they have a pile of guns lying around just after accidentally discharging from there. Plus a fair amount of firearms terms used are wrong. For example, M-4, this is a military designation for a specific configuration of an AR-15. He does not have an M-4, he as an AR-15 with a lot of similar configurations.

But what it coms down to is again, these people are breaking BOTH the standard 4 and YOUR personal 5 rules.

We have traffic laws like "wear your seatbelt" You can post tons of examples of people who had accidents when they weren't wearing their seatbelt, does that mean we need to change the 'wear your seatbelt" rule, because people are obviously still getting hurt? No, it means we must begin enforcing the rule we do have.

 

[Justin]

In your entire list, there is not ONE example of someone obeying all 4 rules and STILL having an AD/ND.

Quoted for truth.

Put a fork in this one, it's done.

If you want to look for an alternative view of the usefulness of The 4 Rules, the best one extant was written by Rob Pincus a couple of years ago:
The Four Rules

He proposed an alternative set of 3 rules that make much sense:

1. No one person can declare a weapon "unloaded."
2. Keep all weapons pointed in a safe direction when they are unholstered.
3. Keep your trigger finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot and remove it after you have completed your string of fire.

Having shot with Rob (albeit briefly) I will attest that his system works.

 

[qlajlu]

The four rules have served me well over the years, but hey, if someone needs more rules for themselves to be safe GO FOR IT. I'll stick with the original four, thank you.

 

[BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE]

I like cake, chocolate cake, and last night I took to big of a bite and choked on my chocolate cake, does this mean chocolate cake is to dangerouse and should be outlawed or that I need more rules on how to eat my chocoalte cake? NO, IT DOESNT. I made a mistake and did not use my better judgement with cake. This was my fault, so tell me what are your rules for eating my chocolate cake?


More rules would not have helped me, things can happen to anyone who is not carefull and mindfull.