Should rule two be revised or reworded?

[Bravo Sierra]

It is a good rule, to treat every gun as if it is loaded. Even if you just unloaded it yourself.

Really, what is the point of talking about this. Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

[we are not amused]

"We Are Not Amused" said in part..



I'm glad to see that after 141 posts on this subject, I finally find someone who agrees with me.

Single Action Six

And as I said, "It is nit-picking silliness!":banghead:

 

[we are not amused]

No, rule one should be revised or reworded.


Because if all guns are always loaded...

I can only field strip my glock for cleaning at the shooting range.

I also pointed out that the four rules were intended to be used by HALF-WAY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO BE TRUSTED WITH FIRE-ARMS!:banghead:

I also pointed out that the rules are general guide lines, with exceptions and special conditions, not to be taken in some sort of literal legalistic way. The Four rules would be a hundred pages long!

If you can't figure out a safe way to field strip your Glock, within the general guide lines of the Four Rules, you shouldn't own one, because you are not intelligent enough to be trusted with it!

 

[scythefwd]

loosed - then teach rule one as "Treat all guns as if they are loaded" instead of "All guns are loaded".

 

[we are not amused]

And some find it a bit odd to have a primary rule that's false. But no big deal.

Then why make it one?

Are you arguing just to cause strife?

Or do you really not understand the concept behind Rule 1?

As`I pointed out, the Four Rules assume that you are half-way intelligent and responsible. If not, you have no business owning a gun.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Then why make it one?

I'm not; I'm certainly not the one asking "what's wrong with you people?" But as long as we're on the subject, why are you making a fuss?

Are you arguing just to cause strife?

Perhaps you should answer your own question.

Or do you really not understand the concept behind Rule 1?

I understand the concept fine, as I thought I indicated; do you not understand that it is literally false?

(Please take care in your response, lest you cause strife...)

 

[valnar]

Disclaimer: I just jumped on this thread for the first time and only read the first post. I have not read all 7 pages of replies.

I have no problem with rules 3 and 4. Good solid rules. If everyone including bad guys followed rule 4, there would less accidental deaths in the world.

I have a problem with rules 1 and 2. It's being a bit paranoid and may even cause OCD. Once you verified its an unloaded weapon, its a brick. Why is that important for me to say? Well, I'll tell you.

The OMG-it's-loaded attitude is what turns my wife off of guns. The way they handle guns in gun stores by the constant opening, closing, racking and pointing the muzzle down just reinforces to my wife that they are indeed very dangerous and not to be messed with (not even by me!!). Intellectually we know they cannot go off, but emotionally they are still making you fear them. I had to give my wife my first handgun (unloaded of course) and let her feel it to get comfortable with it, all while I was telling her its "just a paperweight" without ammunition. Well, it is. I banged it on the table a couple times and showed it her it was nothing more than a hunk of metal....until it is loaded. That helped a lot.

It's ammunition that is dangerous. Guns are not. Knives are far more dangerous since they are always 'loaded'.

Now, I know my rant breaks some cardinal gun rules, but it was a way I could calm the fears of my wife. These rules were made by a man, not handed down from God. Sure, it is always a best practice to see if a gun is loaded first, but forcing...hell, expecting people to have a bad memory that the gun is unloaded even after we just checked it 5 seconds ago does not help our cause. IMO of course.

 

[bobmcd]

If all guns are always loaded, why do I have to buy ammunition? :-}

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I just jumped on this thread for the first time and only read the first post. I have not read all 7 pages of replies....

Then I guess you don't really know all that we've been talking about.

...expecting people to have a bad memory that the gun is unloaded even after we just checked it 5 seconds ago does not help our cause....

Let's see, did I just check my gun? Was it five seconds ago? Didn't I just check it a couple of minutes ago? Didn't I check it just before I put it on the table to go answer the phone?

Maybe we are expecting people to have a bad memory about when they checked their gun and whether or not it was loaded then. But often people do have bad memories or get distracted. It seems that sometimes guns fire, and sometimes hurt someone, when the guy handling the gun thought it was unloaded (or forgot that it wasn't or forgot when he last checked it). It seems that a gun you thought you knew was unloaded is the most dangerous.

The folks I teach with, and the folks I've competed with and trained with, tend to be pretty compulsive about checking. Every time one picks up a gun, goes to handle a gun, pretty much does anything with a gun, he or she would check. And in my circle of NRA certified instructors, USPSA competitors, Gunsite graduates and folks with training at other well known schools or with well known instructors, doing so is considered the sign of a pro.

So --

• If you hand me a gun, don't bother telling me it's not loaded. Because I follow Rule One, 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 One since it is a gun it is loaded, and you should have conducted yourself accordingly.
  
  
• Never take for granted the status of a gun. If you think it's unloaded, but you still verify, no harm has been done if you were right. But if you think it's unloaded, don't verify, and you were wrong, someone could get hurt or die.

If all guns are always loaded, why do I have to buy ammunition?...

Your problem is that you don't really believe. If you really and truly believed, you wouldn't have to buy ammunition.

 

[valnar]

fiddletown,
Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Of course I check a gun when it is handed to me, as well as my own the first time I pick it up. If you feel the need to keep re-checking the same gun over and over within a span of 2 minutes (like I see people at the gun stores do), then more power to you. But that doesn't make me any less safe.

My point is, if you are overly anal about the rules, then how can you dry fire? How can you check the sights and aim at something like a wall? How can you clean your gun? That's all Im saying.

 

[valnar]

loosed - then teach rule one as "Treat all guns as if they are loaded" instead of "All guns are loaded".

I just got to this post. Yes! Exactly. This is what I was saying, but you said it more concise.

 

[kludge]

Treat them as if they are loaded until you verify they are not.

So after you verify it's unloaded it's OK to point a gun at someone/something to don't wish to shoot?

It's always the people with "unloaded" guns that accidently shoot people.

 

[kludge]

Do you have to bend or violate those rules in order to do things like holster a gun, dry fire, or clean it?

Yes.

No. When cleaning you disassemble it until it's no longer a "gun". Dry fire is not an exception to rule #2; you find something that will stop bullet that you don't care about to point your gun at. When holstering/drawing you don't cross your own body or anyone elses.

 

[Frank Ettin]

then teach rule one as "Treat all guns as if they are loaded" instead of "All guns are loaded".

I just got to this post. Yes! Exactly. This is what I was saying, but you said it more concise.

Well, for what it's worth, here's Jeff Cooper on that point:

• 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...

  
  
• 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....

Personally, I like that perspective. If I'm handling a gun, I'm not going to pretend it's loaded. As far as I'm concerned, it is loaded, and I will conduct myself accordingly. Of course that means if I'm going to clean it or put it in a case for transportation, for example, I will need to clear it. And somehow I've managed to shoot guns, carry them for protection, clean them and transport them without any problem or confusion.

 

[we are not amused]

I'm not; I'm certainly not the one asking "what's wrong with you people?" But as long as we're on the subject, why are you making a fuss?Perhaps you should answer your own question.I understand the concept fine, as I thought I indicated; do you not understand that it is literally false?

(Please take care in your response, lest you cause strife...)

"Sigh" The concept behind "Treat every gun as if it were loaded", is that if you do, then you are less likely to have an accident. As I pointed out earlier, there are many variations on the wording of the Four Rules, none of which change the overall importance, meaning, or utility of them.

The Rules were designed for half-way intelligent people who were responsible enough to be trusted with firearms. I suggest you look back at what I wrote earlier, about some of the obvious exemptions to the Four Rules, as I don't feel like repeating all of it.

Trying to treat the "Four Rules" as some sort of legalistic terminology with precise definitions would result in a set of rules, definitions, exemptions, notes and addenda, that would be a hundred pages long or more. This serves nobody's purpose, and would be counterproductive.

I have seen the Four Rules stated in many different forms, all meaning the same, and I think it is stupid and counterproductive to get all "wee weed up" about precise definitions of the "Four Rules".

Your insistence that in one variation of the wording, that it is literally false, seems to ignore the reasoning behind the statement.

If we treat all guns as if they are loaded, then we are less likely to do something stupid with them. The version of the Four Rules you take exception to, is merely a more direct and shorter, therefore easier to remember, version of the one I was taught long ago, which was, "Treat all guns as if they were loaded". It also makes a somewhat stronger impression, which for a beginner with guns may not be a bad thing.

My objection to you with "it is an obvious falsehood" is that you are ignoring concept behind the phrase, in favor of some overly precise definition of the phrase. In other words, You are Nit-picking!

Feel free to restate the Rules anyway you like, as long as they convey the meaning behind them. I don't object to variations on the wording, I object to the idea, that the wording must be literally (and legalistically) correct. I don't believe that one could come up with a set of rules, that would cover every situation, but the Four Rules come close. But not if we insist that they be literally true and be bound to them in some legalistic way.

I also object to the notion, that there is a precise phrasing of the rules. The variations I have seen are all within the general meaning of each other, and the Four Rules as stated in the original post.

The variation I was taught was,
1; Treat all guns as if they were loaded.

2; Never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot.

3; Don't touch the trigger till you are ready to shoot.

4; Don't shoot your target, if you are not sure it is safe.

Obviously, those rules were taught to me by someone who was cognizant of Jeff Coopers rules, but worded them differently. I see no fundamental difference in the meaning between the two.

There is an article on the Gun Zone web site which leads me to believe that you get around. I agree with Dean Speir.

I strongly recommend that people read the article in the Gun Zone site.

http:///www.thegunzone.com/therules.html

 

[we are not amused]

No. When cleaning you disassemble it until it's no longer a "gun". Dry fire is not an exception to rule #2; you find something that will stop bullet that you don't care about to point your gun at. When holstering/drawing you don't cross your own body or anyone elses.

How hard is it for any one to figure that out? Is kludge a genius? Or is he just surrounded by Morons?:banghead:

 

[Lubricant]

Carefull there Sparks,Lotta people reeaaallll sensitive about the "R" word around these parts. Resistance is futile,We are the Borg..

 

[thorazine]

Really? You can't find or create a place at home where a handgun would be safe to fire? Is a 5 gallon bucket full of sand appropriately located withi your home impossible?

A five gallon bucket filled with sand will not match the interior decor. =/

I also pointed out that the rules are general guide lines, with exceptions and special conditions, not to be taken in some sort of literal legalistic way. The Four rules would be a hundred pages long!

A lot of people do take them literal -- word for word.

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY.

Does this mean that I need to crawl on my stomach in to and around most gun stores?

For it seems every time you walk by a handgun display case you walk in front of a dozen or more muzzles.

Or does this suggest that the owner / operator of the gun store is willing to destroy me?

Especially since all guns are ALWAYS loaded according to rule one.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I am the original poster (June 4th) and since this thread has been revised after a long dormancy I would like to repeat what started all this controversy. All I asked was:

Should rule two be revised or reworded?

Let’s look objectively at the four basic rules of gun safety as codified by Jeff Cooper. They are brilliantly simple with built in redundancy yet I think a slight revision to the second rule might make a little more sense.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED.

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY.

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET.

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHATS BEYOND IT.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Rule Two:

NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY.

NEVER is a strong word and If taken literally you could never bring a firearm indoors, put it in your car or even put it in a holster because the muzzle would cover lots of things that you are not willing to destroy. The muzzle is always pointed somewhere and we must compromise by pointing it at something fairly valuable like the new carpet or the big screen TV to avoid pointing it at something irreplaceable like our knees and other people.

Maybe this rule should be reworded any ideas?

My personal choice is:

Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

“Safe” being relative of course.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Trying to treat the "Four Rules" as some sort of legalistic terminology with precise definitions

This is sad, really.

I'm only trying to treat it as an English sentence, not as "legalistic terminology." Words mean something.

I think it is stupid and counterproductive to get all "wee weed up" about precise definitions of the "Four Rules".

The only person who seems to insist that we all adopt his concept of what the rules should be, and who is all "wee weed up," is you. That would make your activities stupid and counterproductive, according to you.

 

[we are not amused]

This is sad, really.

I'm only trying to treat it as an English sentence, not as "legalistic terminology." Words mean something.The only person who seems to insist that we all adopt his concept of what the rules should be, and who is all "wee weed up," is you. That would make your activities stupid and counterproductive, according to you.

I have never argued that any one wording is correct, only the intent behind the rules. I have stated that I consider a literal reading of the rules as stupid, I stand by that.
As I have repeatedly said, the rules were intended for "half-way intelligent people, responsible enough to handle firearms".

It appears that some on this site fail in the above stipulation.

By the way, are you the person that Dean Spier referred to in Gun Zone?

 

[we are not amused]

A five gallon bucket filled with sand will not match the interior decor. =/

Your problem, work it out.

A lot of people do take them literal -- word for word.

I never said that I thought a lot of people were intelligent.

Does this mean that I need to crawl on my stomach in to and around most gun stores?

For it seems every time you walk by a handgun display case you walk in front of a dozen or more muzzles.

Or does this suggest that the owner / operator of the gun store is willing to destroy me?

Especially since all guns are ALWAYS loaded according to rule one.

Suit yourself!
While I have a certain fondness for smart asses, (it beats being a dumb ass) I do understand why some people get annoyed with them.

 

[Loosedhorse]

As I have repeatedly said, the rules were intended for "half-way intelligent people, responsible enough to handle firearms".

It appears that some on this site fail in the above stipulation.

Ah yes: the standard "if you don't agree with me, you are not intelligent or responsible enough to handle guns" ad hominem attack.

With which you admit you have no logical argument for your position...so you substitute insult. And with which you also admit an elitist attitude toward gun ownership: only those who pass an intelligence standard (that you are so gracious to define for us) should handle guns.

You do not seek to discuss or convince: you just bully.

Might as well send your membership money into the Brady Campaign right now: you've got their hypocritical attitude perfectly: "Guns for me are fine, guns for those less worthy than me are not."

 

[Warp]

Loosedhorse...you just don't get it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

"Just don't get it"? That's another favorite of the antigun crowd.

Like flat earth fanatics, Second Amendment fanatics just don't get it. Facts are facts. The earth is not flat. And Constitutional law is Constitutional law. The Second Amendment is not absolute. It does not guarantee the mythical individual right to bear arms we will hear argued for today.

Charles Schumer, April 5 1995

Yep, the elistist, dismissive "you just don't get it." Puts you in good company there, Warp. Kinda of makes me proud that you and I see things differently.