Gun-related sayings that need to go away

Status
Not open for further replies.
With all respect to Jeff Cooper, "All guns are always loaded!"

I never understood why we started teaching gun safety with something that was demonstrably false. I've also hear "treat all guns as though they are loaded" and "all guns are loaded until you personally verify otherwise" and I'm fine with those, but don't start teaching a new person about gun safety by telling a lie in rule #1.

The justification was that you are teaching a habit of mind. Gun=Loaded. It is a good presumption.

It is purely accurate to say you should treat every gun as if loaded. It is more visceral to say, yes, if it is a gun it is loaded. The opposite of saying "all guns are loaded" is what we hope never to hear, and never, ever, to say: I did not know it was loaded. Of course you knew, because all guns are always loaded. It is Murphy's law as it applies to guns.
 
"You just are not ready (or skilled enough, or good or smart enough) to carry a gun if..."

If you carry in condition three. Or you don't like cocked and locked guns. Or if you don't like appendix carry.

The level of condescension is appalling. One may ask, who asked you? Generations of Brits and Israelis did all right with condition three, generations of police did all right with revolvers.

I have never carried appendix and still sing bass-baritone in the choir.
 
How about when watching the news about an up close and personal shooting and the reporter says so and so was shot "point blank".

When "point blanc" refers to the farthest distance at which you can hit a target without holding over it.
Just learned this last week and felt oddly betrayed. Should have known better than to trust anything I learned from 80s and 90s action movies.
 
Going Gump on this one. Can’t help myself. “But Lieutenant Dan, you ain’t got no legs”...or signature.
Stupid is as stupid does, Private Gump. You must be on a phone. On desktop, this is my sig

Pet peeve: "You better send that defective __________ to me for proper disposal." Not original. Not funny. Not helpful. Please make it stop.
 
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." That sounds like a rip off of Wild Bill's "Take your time in a hurry" That was his suggestion on success in winning gunfights.

"Rugers are built like Tanks" Talked to a guy who was an engineer at Ruger. People relate size to strength. Rugers are bigger because they are cast.
He told me casting need to be larger to have the same strength as a forging.
That is common knowledge among anyone with even a basic knowledge of metal working, Rugers by their design are stronger than their forged Colt and Smith and Wesson counterparts, Hence why Smith and Wesson model 25's just cant handle loads that John Linebaugh developed or how the M29 needed endurance upgrades to handle even the .44 magnum.
 
The whole "what's your life worth?" when suggesting carry guns (or criticizing the choices made by others.)

There is not one person who can make me understand the algorithm behind that. So, you carry a three-thousand-dollar gun. How does that tell me at what amount, in USD, you value your life? I haven't even come up with an amount at which I value mine.

On the flip side, the whole:

"I'll only carry a Glock/Smith/XD/Ruger/whatever because if I have to use it I dont want my expensive gun in police lock up".

Let's face it. The chances of you actually needing to present your gun are very small. Use it (in a good shoot) even smaller. Even if you never get your Wilson/Nighthawk/whatever back you likely used up your allotment of bad luck in a lifetime.

I say carry what you shoot best, regardless of cost. If it saves your life, money well spent.
 
I've actually heard it many times referencing both scenarios. I like HKs and pay a lot of attention to threads about them. So my perception is probably skewed.

I used to hang out in the HK forum also but I wasn't enough of a tacticool operator for them, so I got fed up and left. I heard the reference there several times in regards to past CS encounters and the lack of attention to the civilian market both. I don't think either is true anymore.

More for my list:

"You're either a wolf, a sheep, or a sheepdog."

This isn't specific to guns but of mentality and I've heard it many times in reference to the philosophy of carrying a gun. It's wrong IMO and can't encompass all the people in the world or even the population of this country. Human mentality is far to variable to fit into one of these three categories. I'm more of a badger or a skunk. I'm content to be left alone, and don't really involve myself in the affairs of others. Leave me be and we're fine. Mess with me, and you won't like the outcome.

I can't stand any use of the terms "sheeple", "liberal", or any other derogatory term used in any stereotypical statements about antigun folks. Their perspective is flawed IMO in most cases but referring to them this way when we talk guns is degrading and not constructive.

"Revolvers are a better choice for carry because they're more reliable than autoloaders."

Well they seem to be less prone to failure due to their design, but it also seems when one goes down it becomes a club. Autoloaders may malfunction more easily, but when they do they can sometimes be quickly brought back to a functional condition by the user. You are taking s chance either way, so pick what's right for you.
Revolvers are a better choice for other reasons, and they are more reliable thats just the way it is, every autoloader regardless of design has its biggest flaws in the magazine and the dependence on "perfect" ammunition, if the ammunition is even slightly in a different shape, contour, or design that ball the autoloader will not function regardless of brand. I can attest to seeing 1911's, glocks, and smith M&P's jam with flat nose ammo while rare it does happen.
 
When I was with 1st TOW company we were stationed with 1st Tank battalion. I recall that those M60 tanks took around 8 hours of maintenance for every hour of use.

Those poor tankers were ALWAYS working on those tanks.

Here's my saying that needs to go away,

I support the 2nd Amendment BUT
All too common on that last saying...
 
The El Capitan drill gives me hives. Why would I turn my back on three armed assailants? Why would I reload, seeing that the service pistol I saw after nineteen-eighty or so had 15 shots?

And yet, if you do a good job on that useless drill, you are a chum, somehow. Useless, but a lodge pin if you can do it in under so many seconds, wait, what is the record now?
 
Last edited:
ATLDave wrote:
Gun-related sayings that need to go away

"I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

In fact, any "popular saying" that suggests a penchanct for shooting first needs to go away. How do we maintain the illusion that we carry weapons for self-defense when, in fact, in light of postings that seem to say the shooter is relying on jury nullification?
 
TXOutlaw wrote:
....and Ruger revolvers are built like tanks. Neither are indestructible but are over-built and conducive to longevity.

And both will kill you

Actually, a zinc-alloy RG-25 will just as easily kill someone if employed correctly.

In light of this, what is your point? Ruger revolvers can be deadly? Granted. Ruger revolvers are well-made. Granted. But what does any of that have to do with the question at hand?
 
this one may be a blasphemy for some folks here :
" if guns kill people, cars should be banned, too"
used as argument in discussions
I find it a really, really stupid comparison
 
this one may be a blasphemy for some folks here :
" if guns kill people, cars should be banned, too"
used as argument in discussions
I find it a really, really stupid comparison

Certainly no stupider than the flip-side argument, "we should regulate guns like cars." Which, if taken seriously, would mean
  • no limits on who can own a firearm (driver's license requirements only pertain to the operation of a vehicle on public roads - not ownership; felons could walk right into an FFL and buy anything they had the money to buy),
  • no caliber limits (just as there are no HP limits.... goodbye destructive device rules),
  • no rate of fire limits (just as there are speed limits to operation on public roads, but no limits on speed capability nor speed use on private land... goodbye full auto rules),
  • an affirmative requirement for silencers in many settings (they're just mufflers for guns),
  • carrying a gun into a prohibited place means a civil citation (just like parking your car in a no-parking zone), not a criminal charge, and
  • it would take numerous repeated, demonstrated offenses involving a firearm in order to lose a carry license (think about how many tickets and accidents people have to have before actually losing their driver's license).
Of course nobody wants that, least of all the people who say we should regulate guns like we regulate cars. I

But neither of these are sayings, really. Just arguments.
 
You have to take this in context. Yes, if you are going to clean your gun, you clear it, and yes it is not loaded. The correct context is a general practice. And even if your are handling a cleared gun, you treat it as if it were loaded. EG: you don't point it at people, etc.

That’s kind of my point. “All guns are always loaded” is an absolute. It contains the words “all” and “always.”

It isn’t worded to be taken in context; we take it in context, because we aren’t idiots and we know it can’t be true. It is why we buy more ammunition, and practice reloads, and clear guns before we clean them: we know they aren’t always loaded. As I said, I have no problem with the phrase “treat all guns . . .” but to start teaching beginners with a lie seems like a disservice to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top