Should rule two be revised or reworded?

[Single Action Six]

Destroy..!!..?

Ever since the 4 rules came out years ago, I've always disagreed with the word "DESTROY" being used.. but NOT what rule two was trying to portray. My thought was, why give the Anti's any more ammunition than what they have already.

Anti: "So, I understand you own firearms?"
Gunner: "Yes."
Anti: "I understand there are four rules you follow?"
Gunner: Yes we do."
Anti: Rule two says something about shooting and DESTROYING things?"
Gunner: "Right. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to DESTROY!"
Anti: "So you vile gun owners just don't want to shoot at a target, but to DESTROY it!!"

Yep.. let's give the Anti's just that much more ammunition to shoot us in our foot with.

Single Action Six

 

[Owen Sparks]

Just say "Always keep the muzzel pointed in a safe direction." and leave it at that.

 

[Justin]

Ever since the 4 rules came out years ago, I've always disagreed with the word "DESTROY" being used.. but NOT what rule two was trying to portray. My thought was, why give the Anti's any more ammunition than what they have already.

Anti: "So, I understand you own firearms?"
Gunner: "Yes."
Anti: "I understand there are four rules you follow?"
Gunner: Yes we do."
Anti: Rule two says something about shooting and DESTROYING things?"
Gunner: "Right. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to DESTROY!"
Anti: "So you vile gun owners just don't want to shoot at a target, but to DESTROY it!!"

Yep.. let's give the Anti's just that much more ammunition to shoot us in our foot with.

In my experience, anti-gun activists are too busy making things up out of thin air to actually take the time to research the gun culture and the various underpinnings that allow it to function safely. I really don't think this would be worth worrying about.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Single Action Six,

The Four Rules have been around for a long time, and I've never heard any anti come up with anything close. Have you? How about some evidence?

 

[Flopsweat]

With due respect to those with more time on this board than I (which would be almost all of you) let’s remember the purpose of the four rules. They do not stand by themselves. You would not hand a new shooter a sheet of paper with the four rules and a gun and then expect him/her to be safe. The four rules are intended to be a part of your training that you commit to memory. A lot of great points have been brought up here and that is exactly the kind of discussion that should happen during a proper training session, be it a formal or informal one. You can reword them to your heart’s content but they will still mean different things to different people. Heck, the NRA’s three rules mean the same thing and are just as effective. I will now dive for cover while the new (old) battle over Cooper vs. NRA rules ensues. ;-)

 

[Single Action Six]

Did I say That They Have..?

Single Action Six,

The Four Rules have been around for a long time, and I've never heard any anti come up with anything close. Have you? How about some evidence?

I was just pointing out that the word DESTROY is, in my opinion, too strong of a word/term to use.. and gave a example of how the Anti's "could" use it against us.

Why not just say (as some here have said), "Never point a loaded firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot/fire at." It's simple, gets the point across and does it in a more gentle manner.

Also.. most targets one shoots at and hits aren't DESTROYED. Far from it. When you shoot steel plate, SASS, IPSC, etc., etc competition and you hit poppers, knockdowns, etc., have you DESTROYED them. Of course NOT. So why use a word that not only overly exaggerates what happens, but is not really truthful in itself?

As I said before.. I don't disagree with the point being made.. but how it's being done.

Thank You for your comment.

Single Action Six

 

[rogertc1]

Rule 2 used to be never point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I was just pointing out that the word DESTROY is, in my opinion, too strong of a word/term to use.. and gave a example of how the Anti's "could" use it against us.

Why not just say (as some here have said), "Never point a loaded firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot/fire at." It's simple, gets the point across and does it in a more gentle manner.

Also.. most targets one shoots at and hits aren't DESTROYED. Far from it. When you shoot steel plate, SASS, IPSC, etc., etc competition and you hit poppers, knockdowns, etc., have you DESTROYED them....

Yes, "destroy" is a very strong word. That's the point. If you point a gun at something, you might shoot it, and shooting something is not a trivial thing. The damage that can be caused can be profound. Shooting something is highly destructive.

To be sure, some things exist to be shot at -- like paper targets, poppers, etc. Shooting them might indeed not destroy them immediately, but if they are destroyed (and targets, poppers, etc., that get shot a lot are ultimately destroyed), it is of no consequence. That is the expected conclusion of their useful life.

But if you shoot at me, my cat or my wife, there is a real possibility that you will destroy me, my cat or my wife. Yes, we might survive, but we might not. And even if we do survive, there's a good chance we'll never be quite the same again. Getting shot certainly isn't going to do us any good.

So pointing a gun at something is indeed a very serious matter. If you're not willing to destroy that thing, you have no business pointing a gun at it.

I'm willing to destroy the target I set up at the range, or the popper at the IPSC match. The target will ultimately go into the trash, and the popper will become scrap.

But shooting my neighbors kid is highly likely to destroy her, and therefore I have no business pointing my gun at her.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Why not just say (as some here have said), "Never point a loaded firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot/fire at." It's simple, gets the point across and does it in a more gentle manner....

I just took another look at this, and must comment further.

You refer to a loaded gun. That is entirely inappropriate. We should not be pointing any gun at something we are not willing to destroy. One reason Rule One is formulated, "All guns are always loaded." is to avoid this sort of useless tautology. Among other things, if you point a gun at me, I don't know whether you've properly cleared or not.

And there's really no reason that the basic rules of safe gun handling should be "gentle." Guns are serious business. The damage they can do is substantial. Safe gun handling is nonnegotiable. Once a gun fires, the bullet will strike whatever the gun was pointed at, whether a bullseye on a target or the neighbor's kid; and once the gun fires, nothing will prevent that.

If you are handling a gun, you are absolutely responsible for assuring that gun does not go off unless it is your intention that it does and it is proper to shoot whatever you are pointing the gun at. If you are handling a gun, you are absolutely responsible for assuring that if the gun fires, the bullet doesn't hit anything that should not be shot.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Again, there are plenty of things that we must point loaded guns at that do not need to be shot. Holsters, floors, walls and just about anything in the interior of our homes and vehicles. The rule is relitive based on value. We avoid people and pets but sometimes let the muzzel cover things that we would rather not have a hole in like our cars dashboard to avoid pointing it at the things that can not be replaced like our feet. "Safe Direction" is a relitive term. "Anything that you are not willing to distroy" is not.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I was just pointing out that the word DESTROY is, in my opinion, too strong of a word/term to use.. and gave a example of how the Anti's "could" use it against us.

I think "destroy" is just barely extreme enough a word to convey the idea that you don't flag people and things with your muzzle. It barely captures the aversion people need to take away from the lesson -- and is more appropriate than "kill" because dead is pretty easy compared to losing a body part and living a long life afterwards because some idiot had a lapse of common sense and professionalism.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The rule is relitive based on value. We avoid people and pets but sometimes let the muzzel cover things that we would rather not have a hole in like our cars dashboard to avoid pointing it at the things that can not be replaced like our feet. "Safe Direction" is a relitive term. "Anything that you are not willing to distroy" is not.

I simply don't buy your rationale. Essentially, if you're going to point a gun at something, be sure you don't mind if it's destroyed, because if you wind up shooting unintentionally whatever you're pointing the gun at, that's the likely consequence. At least shooting it isn't going to do it any good.

So if you want to point the gun at the car's dashboard or floor or back seat, think about how happy you'd be if there were a bullet hole there. If you wouldn't be content to have a bullet hole there, maybe you need to try thinking of alternate ways in which to handle your gun.

We find that Rule Two as currently taught by us ("Never let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy) helps our students be very, very careful about where they point their guns. And that's the point of the Rule.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I have been shooting for 50 years and I missed the four rule deal until I started reading these forums. Logic and common sense worked fine.

I never allow the muzzle to point at another human, dog, my foot, and such.

But, if you took that rule litterally you couldn't even take a gun in your house.

 

[45_auto]

But, if you took that rule litterally you couldn't even take a gun in your house.

Why not?

 

[LJ-MosinFreak-Buck]

Hey may be refering to living beings, not inanimate objects. My two cents.

 

[The Bushmaster]

"Over thinking" can be or is dangerous.

 

[CajunBass]

I suppose you can make any rules you want to. It's ok with me.

But, if you took that rule litterally you couldn't even take a gun in your house.

Why not?

Because anywhere you put the gun it's pointing at SOMETHING. Probably something you don't want to destroy (or shoot). The floor, the wall, the ceiling...and so on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Because anywhere you put the gun it's pointing at SOMETHING....

As mentioned earlier. These are rules for gun handling (i. e., when the gun is in your hand).

 

[Justin]

Again, there are plenty of things that we must point loaded guns at that do not need to be shot. Holsters, floors, walls and just about anything in the interior of our homes and vehicles. The rule is relitive based on value. We avoid people and pets but sometimes let the muzzel cover things that we would rather not have a hole in like our cars dashboard to avoid pointing it at the things that can not be replaced like our feet. "Safe Direction" is a relitive term. "Anything that you are not willing to distroy" is not.

If you allow your muzzle to cover it, you should be cognizant of the fact that the potentiality exists that you could put a hole in it. The clear implication is that, while handling a firearm, you must make the choice of what you're willing to put a hole in.

If the fact that Rule 2 makes you reconsider pointing a gun at, say, your tv, or the dashboard of your car, or whatever, then it has worked.

Why not just say (as some here have said), "Never point a loaded firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot/fire at." It's simple, gets the point across and does it in a more gentle manner.

Also.. most targets one shoots at and hits aren't DESTROYED. Far from it. When you shoot steel plate, SASS, IPSC, etc., etc competition and you hit poppers, knockdowns, etc., have you DESTROYED them. Of course NOT. So why use a word that not only overly exaggerates what happens, but is not really truthful in itself?

I see no reason to make the rules more gentle. Firearms are tools capable of immediate and irreversible dramatic action. No, a steel IPSC popper doesn't explode into a shower of fragments as if hit by a rocket launcher, but to criticize the rule for something like that is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the consequences of a negligent discharge can indeed destroy things, maybe not in a physical sense, but in a larger one. After all, it can be quite clearly argued that NDs have destroyed lives and families.

Just because your handgun doesn't cause things to explode like in a Hollywood movie doesn't mean it can't destroy something. A loved one with a bullet hole between their eyes is just as dead as if they were hit by an explosion.

 

[Owen Sparks]

My concern is that the "anything you don't want to destroy" version is so stringent that it is practically impossible to follow anywhere except on firing line at the range if taken literally. It worked fine in the Arizona desert where Cooper taught. At his school the other students stood behind you and there was nothing except targets and desert in front of you. This changes when it is time to get back in the car and go home as things are no longer as black and white.

This impossibly strict wording of this rule may lead some people to rationalize that the other 3 rules should not be followed to the letter either.

That is the part that bothers me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

My concern is that the "anything you don't want to destroy" version is so stringent that it is practically impossible to follow...

This impossibly strict wording of this rule may lead some people to rationalize that the other 3 rules should not be followed to the letter either. .. .

[1] It's "willing to destroy" not "want to destroy." And that's correct. If you point a gun at something, you need to be willing to see that thing destroyed; because that's what is likely to happen to it if the gun fires. If you're not willing to see it ruined, don't point your gun there.

[2] As for people rationalizing it, or the other Rules, that hasn't been a problem IME.

 

[HorseSoldier]

My concern is that the "anything you don't want to destroy" version is so stringent that it is practically impossible to follow anywhere except on firing line at the range if taken literally.

It should be taken literally when you have a weapon in your hand. Anything you are flagging can potentially be destroyed, killed, or irreparably damaged. The rule means you have to first have the situational awareness to keep your muzzle pointed somewhere safe, or in some cases pick the least bad option available to you. And it means you have to accept responsibility for having an instrument with potentially life changing/ruining consequences in your hand.

If you're not able to work through the responsibility inherent to the carry and use of arms the answer is not to rewrite the rules to reduce the burden of responsibility. The answer is to take a harder look at whether you are mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with the consequences of possessing and carrying a tool with the potential to kill, maim, and destroy through both intentional and unintentional/accidental actions.

 

[ZeroJunk]

It's hard to carry a pistol without it being pointed at some part of you some time.

 

[GLOOB]

The only time my CCW is pointed at any part of my body is when I put my hand in my front pocket. I personally try to avoid carrying in a way that leaves the muzzle pointing at myself or other people. This is mostly dangerous when holstering/unholstering.

It's not that hard to do. You can even do crossdraw without sweeping. It just depends on your muzzle cant and presentation/holstering technique.

But I agree that rule 2 is meant for whenever you have a gun in your hand, not in a holster. Nothing wrong with the way it's written.

For instance, if you were living in a glass bubble in space, then you shouldn't be handling a firearm, period. Most of us can live by that rule and still be able to handle a firearm.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's hard to carry a pistol without it being pointed at some part of you some time.

Again, the Four Rules are for gun handling. A gun in the holster not being handled is another matter. See post 39.