Should rule two be revised or reworded?

[Justin]

EPIC MAD! Hey, that's fine. You'd fit right in at some gun stores, where they never cross anyone.

I don't cover people with the muzzle of a weapon in a gun store. I pick a blank spot on the wall, or a target, and aim at that if I need to acquire a sight picture. That other people are so inconsiderate as to blithely point guns at the people behind the counter doesn't change the fact that every one of them is wrong.

And when is the last time you referred to a DA revolver with the cylinder swung open as having an open action?

I've been an acting Range Safety Officer at many USPSA matches. When going through the "make the gun safe" checklist after a revolver shooter has finished a course of fire, I've used both the commands "cylinder open" and "action open" with revolver shooters and never once has the competitor been confused as to what I meant.

If you're the sort of person who would be confused by such a simple command, perhaps you ought not be handling guns.

Lots of bits of semantic nitpicking about the four rules with no suggestions for actually improving them.

Oh, look, an attempt to look clever by nit-picking the semantics of the four rules!

If you get down to it, yes, there are valid criticisms of the four rules, but you've yet to actually hit upon them. Furthermore, I seriously doubt you've got the experience to have valid insights into the situations where the four rules may not necessarily apply.

Furthermore, the four rules cover practically every situation in which someone may be handling a firearm. There may be a need for further context-specific safety rules, but at no time have I ever been in a situation where those added bits of safety activity contradicted the four rules.

 

[Old krow]

I think an alternative question is, "How many people who had NDs were aware of the 4 Rules?" That really goes to their effectiveness.

I'd be interested in seeing a study done on it, but I haven't. All I really have to go by is my own personal experiences and localized statistics. In my own personal experiences it has happened only once that someone was unfamiliar with the 4 rules completely. Making the 4 rules read differently would not have helped because the person had little interest in guns, it was a joke to them. If anything I might advocate a 5th rule that read "maintain positive control of your weapon at all times."

In two cases the rules were disregarded completely. They were specifically rules #2 and #4 because both were aware that their guns were loaded and intended to shoot. One resulted in the loss of an infant's life, the other in the injury of the shooter. Had the rules been followed, no matter how they were written, neither of those would have happened. "Destroy" was appropriate in those cases.

If you are dry-firing your weapon, or cleaning it, or whatever the case may be and you have a ND and blow a hole in your sheet rock, it is bad. However, it is not nearly as bad as some of the alternatives. The rules are intended to prevent the loss of life, or injury, and every consequence of a lesser weight at the same time by stating the worst possible scenario. All you have to do is remember a couple simple rules to be safe.

If the question of "how many people knew the 4 rules" is an issue, then we'd be far better off by redirecting our efforts and trying to ensure that everyone that handles a gun is aware of them.

 

[Loosedhorse]

[redacted, upon advice of Lh's counsel]

[To be clear: the above is not a quote by fiddletown; Loosedhorse was going to quote fiddletown, but has been advised against it. He has also been advised against part of the response he was going to make to that quote, so:]

[redacted, on advice of Lh's counsel]

If you want to force everyone to conform to your standards, fiddle, start your own forum. Otherwise, live by this one's rules. You want someone to follow special rules that you yourself have decided upon? Ask for it, nicely. Don't try to order people around with your imperious "Don't do it"s. Please?

You are a lawyer. You know the effects of words, and use them to help or injure. You know about threats. Your "you are not authorized, don't do it" bullying has hurt this discussion, and any credibility you had with me.

I've been disputing for a living for more than thirty years.

So, what? That makes you special enough to tell others what they must do on a forum? And allowed to bully others? Get over yourself, dude. Here, you're just another poster--just like any of us.

I won't also say, as you have to me, "Surely you can find a better way in which to express yourself." Because you use words for a living, so I expect you chose yours carefully, and meant the threat you implied. Politeness was possible, but you chose the low road.

I don't cover people with the muzzle of a weapon in a gun store.

Never meant to imply that you do. I just have my hands full usually getting gun store clerks to avoid covering me with anything except the muzzles of action-open guns.

And when is the last time you referred to a DA revolver with the cylinder swung open as having an open action?

Hey, Justin, I understand that you're just tripping over yourself trying to insult me. But if you'd taken the time to be a little more careful, you would have discovered that the guy who was confused by the term actions-open as it applies to revolvers was fiddletown. You took his quote, and attributed it TO ME in error. Let me save fiddletown the trouble: "YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT!"

If you're the sort of person who would be confused by such a simple command, perhaps you ought not be handling guns

Hey, fiddle, this is Justin's insult, directed at me. He meant to direct it at you. Just trying to clear things up!

Lots of bits of semantic nitpicking about the four rules with no suggestions for actually improving them.

Oh, look, an attempt to look clever by nit-picking the semantics of the four rules!

Again, Justin. Attributing a quotation to me that I never said, and as far as I can tell, no one in this thread has said. And then insulting me for it, even though I never said it.

Your'e a moderator, right? Great example to set. Shame on you. No wonder fiddletown is allowed to bully here.

I seriously doubt you've got the experience to have valid insights into the situations where the four rules may not necessarily apply.

Ah. Please specify what meets your criteria for "the experience" necessary to have "valid insights;" and explain how you arrived at your criteria. Then I can tell you if I meet them.

It's nice to know that there are criteria for vaild opinions--perhaps you should post them at the top of the forum, to keep the ignorant away? Or just to inform them they may listen to their betters, but not interrupt?

Oh, just to correct another inaccuracy of yours: as far as I'm concerned, the Four Rules ALWAYS apply. (If we differ as to our opinion of what the Four Rules mean--isn't that a problem of the rules' lack of clarity? Or perhaps my teachers were not of the right stripe? Perhaps we need also a list of acceptable teachers?)

I'd be interested in seeing a study done on it, but I haven't.

May I just say, sincerely, Old krow, THANK YOU for responding nicely to something I said? Quite a relief!

Besides that, I have read your comment, and I appreciate your sharing your experience. And I take it to heart.

 

[murf]

this three-way shouting match is going nowhere.

murf

 

[1911Tuner]

Ditto, murf.

I guess it boils down to just this:

If we handle guns on a daily basis, it's difficult if not impossible to cross something with the muzzle that we don't want shot. Thus the redundant Rule 3 that tells us to keep our finger off the trigger until we intend to shoot...implying that if we do pull the trigger, that we must not only be prepared for the gun to fire, we must expect the gun to fire...and that we are responsible for firing it if it does.

The two rules compliment each other and each one serves as a backup system for the other, much like a manual safety serves as a backup.

So...If we assume that as per Rule 1 that all guns are loaded and we should treat them as such...and we're careful about where the muzzle is pointed as per Rule 2...and we keep our fingers off the triggers as per Rule 3...we can proceed safely during the times that we're handling the gun but not actually firing it. Rule 4 is in effect when we're firing...or preparing to fire.

Redundancy is a good thing.

 

[230RN]

Thank you, murf and 1911Tuner.

<whew!>

 

[benEzra]

I have always understood Rule Two as "never allow the muzzle to point in an unsafe direction".

I don't particularly want a hole in my carpet or wall, but a hole in the carpet and a serious injury to a human being are in vastly different categories.

 

[Owen Sparks]

A buddy went to a basic firearms seminar and early in the class room portion the instructor dimmed the lights and handed one of the students a pistol with a lazer on it. He told the student remove the magazine, pull the slide back and show the guy next to him that the chamber was empty, then replace the magazine and hand it to the next student all while not letting the red dot cross any part of any other person. Everybody in the room was watching that red dot. This is good training that gets the point across.

 

[Cosmoline]

I take it, then, I am supposed to remove the front sideplate screw and cylinder from my DA revolvers before I clean them, so they're "broken down enough?" It is a pity that neither the SW manual nor the NRA basic pistol course informed me of that.

DA revolvers are disassembled automatically everytime you swing the cylinder out. They are no longer able to fire anything, and have a huge gap between the hammer and the barrel. If you're following the standard protocols for cleaning of the weapon in question, you can and will put your hand in front of that barrel. Technically "breaking the rule," but only if you allow for no exceptions.

In order for these rules to truly function, they have to be utilized with common sense, in conjunction with each other, and in conjunction with standard practices for cleaning and inspecting. So there is a time and place to stick your eyeball at the end of a bore.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Edgar Poe once wrote that the plots of God are perfect; the universe is a plot of God.

While I won't go that far with the words of Jeff Cooper, I would like to apply the sign-off of the radio editorialist I used to listen to after "Sleepy Joe" told us kids Uncle Remus style stories: I ask not that you agree with me, only that you think about it.

Jeff Cooper's four rules may not be word perfect, but they do make us think about gun safety and discuss gun safety. Don't change a word.

 

[Loosedhorse]

DA revolvers are disassembled automatically everytime you swing the cylinder out.

Well, I don't usually use the term "disassembled" to mean that--perhaps it is common.

with common sense

Common sense: bad when associated with gun control, good when associated with gun safety?

I thought that the problem with "common sense" is that people do have different ideas about what that is. I would worry that leaving gun safety (or interpretation of rules) to common sense would therefore lead to different ideas about what gun safety is, at least in the details.

But maybe that's inevitable, and the best we can do?

 

[mortablunt]

The rules are pretty straightforward.

#1: Always assume a gun in loaded and treat it as such.
#2: Don't point a gun barrel at anything living or nonliving that you can destroy with the gun.
#3. Do not touch the trigger until you are ready to fire.
#4. Know what you are shooting and what is behind your target; account for over penetration.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Yep. I have a hard time finding anything complicated about it either.

 

[Paul Gomez]

I just stumbled across this discussion but I have had an issue with the classic wording for a long time. I think the more explicitly you express an idea the easier it is for people to understand and follow it.

I uploaded a video last night on this very topic.

 

[we are not amused]

I just watched your video on YouTube.

To be honest, I think you were splitting hairs on some of your distinctions, but you did explain why you thought the differences were important.

Mostly, I like the original wordings and their obvious meanings. The only change I would make is to change the wording in #2 from the words "to destroy", to the phrase "to shoot", simply because with some objects, shooting them will not destroy them. Obviously that is nit picking. And I have seen so many variations on the precise wording of the rules, without changing their meaning in any way, see post #9, that I tend to find this whole discussion to be rather silly nit picking.

#1 Obviously, not all guns are loaded, but if we treat them as if they are, we less likely to have an accident. Obviously looking down the barrel of a gun is not considered smart. Yet we do it all the time when we are cleaning or inspecting guns. We do it with the gun disabled so it can't possibly fire.

#2 Again, pretty self explanatory, but we make certain exceptions, such as in rule #1 Even when bringing a gun into a vehicle or house, it is a good idea to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, away from people.

#3 Again, pretty self explanatory, even when dry firing or just handling a gun, don't point it at something you aren't willing to shoot, with your finger on the trigger.

#4 Unspoken, is the concept you might miss, or shoot through your target, so make sure, that things or people in the immediate vicinity or behind your target are objects you are willing to risk hitting.

If one started using legalistic terms to define the 4 rules, one would end up with a hundred pages of rules, definitions, exemptions, special cases, footnotes, and addenda, and would probably be far less safe, because who could remember all of the rules.

The rules were meant to be used by half-way intelligent people, who were responsible enough to be trusted with a gun. If you fail to meet those standards, then no amount of rules or wording of the rules, will be effective.

Reading some of the postings, the nit picking, and the bickering, I question the fitness of some on this forum, to handle a firearm.

 

[Warp]

Common sense: bad when associated with gun control, good when associated with gun safety?

Common sense: Bad/misleading when used as a label where it does not belong.

Common sense: For appropriate uses of the phrase it would be more appropriate to say "good sense".

 

[Single Action Six]

Someone Agrees..

"We Are Not Amused" said in part..

The only change I would make is to change the wording in #2 from the words "to destroy", to the phrase "to shoot", simply because with some objects, shooting them will not destroy them.

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

Single Action Six

 

[thorazine]

Should rule two be revised or reworded?

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED.

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.

 

[Warp]

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

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?

 

[oneounceload]

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?

Guess you don't live in any form of a town or subdivision where "discharging" a firearm gets you a nice jail stay

 

[taliv]

i find this thread extraordinarily hypocritical.

specifically, that you as a group find the US Constitution and specifically the 2A, to be profound in it's simplicity and unambiguity, and reject as galactically stupid the attempts by others to turn it into thousands of pages of laws and regulations and codes to cover every possible scenario that might exist...

and yet when confronted by a simple, elegant and obvious statement like "All guns are always loaded", you utterly fail to see the value and truth in the language and intent, and feel the need to turn it into something more literally correct, but far less valuable or true

you know, this is exactly what the world needs right here and right now: a giant friggin legal debate over the four rules.

what is wrong with you people?

 

[Strykervet]

Nothing wrong with the language of those rules. The beauty is in the simplicity, and the fact that they will work and be understood by those with no experience and those with infinite experience.

 

[Strykervet]

I have always understood Rule Two as "never allow the muzzle to point in an unsafe direction".

I don't particularly want a hole in my carpet or wall, but a hole in the carpet and a serious injury to a human being are in vastly different categories.

Yeah, there are variations on them all, but they all say the same thing in essence.

The best version would be the one that works for children, adults, firearms enthusiasts and anti's alike. Everyone should know them, whether or not you plan on handling them or owning them. They should be taught to children. Less chance of an accident occuring if they come across one.

Now complicate it into pages of text, and you get confusing drivel that can be debated even more.

 

[Warp]

Guess you don't live in any form of a town or subdivision where "discharging" a firearm gets you a nice jail stay

Your local laws are part of the 4 rules? Interesting.

 

[Loosedhorse]

what is wrong with you people?

Nothing.

Rule 1 is demonstrably false. That it can be "operationalized" to an important safety idea (that is: the rules following this one apply even if you think or know the gun is unloaded) doesn't change the fact that it is a false statement.

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