Inshallah Instructor Injures Individual

[BE Mike]

I like the 4 rules. They make sense, overlap and are somewhat redundant. They are perfect for me, an imperfect person. Some folks will argue with a fence post. Others would complain even after you hung them with a new rope.

 

[HoughMade]

You're wrong...Michigan people do not have my accent....

No. We don't.

 

[indiucky]

None of us are immune to it. Sometimes it's the familiarity that leads to carelessness. That's why we must be at the top of our game when handling guns.

Amen...Who dies in tractor accidents: The big city guy who just bought a mini farm and a tractor and is easing into farm life or the guy who's been farming his whole life and can "turn my tractor on a dime"?

 

[indiucky]

No. We don't.

Ya'll gots no idear whut yor missin' out on....

 

[HoughMade]

Ya'll gots no idear whut your missin' out on....

I've lived in Indiana for 22 years. I know exactly what I am missing out on. As an aside, I now serve as a translator on both sides of the Indiana/Michigan border.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've lived in Indiana for 22 years. I know exactly what I am missing out on. As an aside, I now serve as a translator on both sides of the Indiana/Michigan border.

Thank you for your service.

 

[HubertGummer]

Seriously? That is what happens just about EVERY time.

"IT AINT LOADED, so I can do what I want with it!"

I know it happens, but thats the point. If they were following any of the rules they wouldnt have had an ND.

Assuming a gun is loaded didn't cause them to have an ND. Assuming it was unloaded and not handling the gun safely did.

You must be new here.


It happens ALL. THE. TIME.

It happens in print shops, in apartments, on ranges with bearded operators....


EDIT: You can't "follow" the first rule. "All guns are always loaded." has no associated action per se. It's a statement (flawed) of fact. If you rewrite Cooper's rules such that rule #1 is "Treat all guns as if they are loaded", then yes it can be followed, but then what does it mean? It's open to a lot of interpretation. One interpretation is, "check to make sure it's unloaded before you coonfinger it and wave it around."

1st, See above answer.

2nd, It means treat it like its loaded and don't handle it in a way that you wouldn't handle a loaded gun.

This analogy upthread explained it quite well (and I've added it to my arsenal)



Why would a person ignore the other three after the first rule was followed?

Because the thing they weren't supposed to touch isn't always hot and they know this. "All stoves are always hot" or "treat all stoves as if they are hot" set them up to go ahead and do whatever they want with the stove whenever they've convinced themselves it's cold.

Somebody should have just taught them how to always handle stoves safely and responsibly ...and most importantly, why.

A responsible gun owner would continue to follow the other rules even after the gun is verified to be unloaded. The treat every gun as its loaded rule is just redundancy and I fail to see why it's wrong to follow it as long as a person continues to follow the other rules as well.

I like the 4 rules. They make sense, overlap and are somewhat redundant. They are perfect for me, an imperfect person. Some folks will argue with a fence post. Others would complain even after you hung them with a new rope.

Assuming the gun is loaded and then unloading it is not a substitute for safe handling. Ever.

 

[HoughMade]

Thank you for your service.

I'm having a hard time explaining this thread.

 

[indiucky]

I'm having a hard time explaining this thread.

Try doing it in something other than the Michigan accent...

I don't care if your from Michigan, I still want you to run for Senate in Indiana...Here's my favorite Michigan politician..

[video=youtube;5TPrBDHYoUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TPrBDHYoUw[/video]

[video=youtube;LPc9xG1sajI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPc9xG1sajI[/video]

 

[JettaKnight]

I know it happens, but thats the point. If they were following any of the rules they wouldnt have had an ND.

Assuming a gun is loaded didn't cause them to have an ND. Assuming it was unloaded and not handling the gun safely did.

Not tracking - you said if they followed rule #1... now you're saying following any one rule will prevent ND - which isn't true. Just because someone isn't injured or killed doesn't mean a ND doesn't occur.


When you start off a set of rules with a fallacy (All guns are always loaded) you're setting yourself up for failure.

2nd, It means treat it like its loaded and don't handle it in a way that you wouldn't handle a loaded gun.

As we've seen before, that's open to interpretation. Beard logic would say that it's OK to through it on the ground and stomp on it. (that didn't end well) Some would say it means "don't pull the trigger when it's pointed at someone else".

Why even have that "rule" if the other three are sufficient?

A responsible gun owner would continue to follow the other rules even after the gun is verified to be unloaded. The treat every gun as its loaded rule is just redundancy and I fail to see why it's wrong to follow it as long as a person continues to follow the other rules as well.

Who's a responsible gun owner? Who gets to make that call? Do the irresponsible gun owners know who they are? Before this incident, many people would have describe this firearms instructor to be responsible. I bet the workers at the print shop think they responsible because their chambers are empty. Even on INGO, there's a lot of people that openly disagree with you that would self identify as responsible.

If it makes sense to you, fine - you're not a toddler, you're a big pants person that's got experience and discipline. The real issue is do you use these rules with "gun toddlers"? Do you tell them the stove is always hot, or do you teach them to respect the stove and why it's important? I'm one for simplicity, clarity, and directness over implied mindsets, logical fallacies, and "because I said so!"

 

[HubertGummer]

OK. You guys win. I guess I can't figure out a good way to explain my line of thought.

 

[BE Mike]

I've lived in Indiana for 22 years. I know exactly what I am missing out on. As an aside, I now serve as a translator on both sides of the Indiana/Michigan border.

Please translate this text to Hoosier!

 

[ATM]

OK. You guys win. I guess I can't figure out a good way to explain my line of thought.

Don't let that fact stop you from winning, too. It is not a loss to become convinced at some point that others may be describing a refinement or improvement over a system that they once held and you currently hold.

Go further, scrutinize and compare every claim from every angle you can imagine, that's what I've done.

Then, put it out there to see if anyone comes up with an angle you hadn't considered, that's what I've done.

Then, apply and test in the field, that's what I've done.

Then, adopt it if you want and never consider it a loss to do so. No losers are required in such an exercise.

 

[HubertGummer]

Don't let that fact stop you from winning, too. It is not a loss to become convinced at some point that others may be describing a refinement or improvement over a system that they once held and you currently hold.

Go further, scrutinize and compare every claim from every angle you can imagine, that's what I've done.

Then, put it out there to see if anyone comes up with an angle you hadn't considered, that's what I've done.

Then, apply and test in the field, that's what I've done.

Then, adopt it if you want and never consider it a loss to do so. No losers are required in such an exercise.

I'm not saying that I lost, just that I give up

 

[ATM]

I'm not saying that I lost, just that I give up

I know. I'm suggesting that you don't.

 

[ATM]

Open question to everyone:

What is your resistance to examining, testing or even adopting a system that withstands all attempts against it?

What is your resistance to considering that it may actually be superior in every sense to that which you currently hold to?

What is your motivation to give up or retreat from it at some point rather than adopting it as your own, superior in every sense and able to withstand every angle of scrutiny thrown at it?

What's holding you back from adopting something ATM can't refute?

If your answer boils down to wanting to beat ATM, your motivation is pathetic. This is about educating and instructing others, correcting unsafe behaviors and preventing tragedies.

Think about it.

 

[cbhausen]

Open question to everyone:

What is your resistance to examining, testing or even adopting a system that withstands all attempts against it?

What is your resistance to considering that it may actually be superior in every sense to that which you currently hold to?

What is your motivation to give up or retreat from it at some point rather than adopting it as your own, superior in every sense and able to withstand every angle of scrutiny thrown at it?

What's holding you back from adopting something ATM can't refute?

If your answer boils down to wanting to beat ATM, your motivation is pathetic. This is about educating and instructing others, correcting unsafe behaviors and preventing tragedies.

Think about it.

...says the man called a thinker not a leader.

i know him well and he is both.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is your resistance to examining, testing or even adopting a system that withstands all attempts against it?

It is resistance to the f**kery and asshatery of the embroidered shirta who think they are smarter than everyone else and do not have to be disciplined.

What is your resistance to considering that it may actually be superior in every sense to that which you currently hold to?

Pointing guns at people is wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it is a crime.

What is your motivation to give up or retreat from it at some point rather than adopting it as your own, superior in every sense and able to withstand every angle of scrutiny thrown at it?

You're not selling anything new or superior, just rationalizations for f**kery and asshatery of the embroidered shirts and their gd gun waving.

What's holding you back from adopting something ATM can't refute?

I don't know, maybe that I don't want to rationalize just dips**t stuff with guns and then behaving like an Aspie 5 year old and asking people why?

 

[hog slayer]

...says the man called a thinker not a leader.

i know him well and he is both.

I, too, have had sufficient observation. It seems I grade on a different scale.

 

[Gluemanz28]

I know you want to meet Jesus but perhaps not quite so soon, eh.

Yep, I'm ready to go but too much work needs to be done.