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