New member, have questions...

[Gil223]

"Treat every gun as if loaded" vs "Consider every gun to be loaded"... TOMATO - TOMAHTO! (It sounds like we are all basically in agreement that the key here is "never just assume a firearm is NOT loaded)". Damn few of us would just assume that there were no rattlesnakes under that desert rock before sticking our hand under it, would we? Pax...

 

[MAC702]

...PS wonder what the response would be for the meaning of life? (trick question actually)

"42" of course. Who'd argue that?

 

[deepdiver]

Since he was a personal friend of mine, perhaps my view is colored, but until someone can show me something better than any particular Cooper doctrine I see no point in arguing with what he taught.

I stand corrected on my expectation regarding Mr. Cooper.

I certainly understand why an instructor would take the "is loaded" route as it plays to the lowest common denominator and removes any thought process. It is essentially a zero tolerance position by today's terminology. However, I agree with Wrightme as far as "treat" v "is". My agreement comes from my background in psychology rather than firearms.

We know from research that teaching people absolutes that they later find are untrue or actually nuanced leads to a host of problems. For example, teach kids blah, blah, blah about drugs while they are pretty young and absolutes are functional as they don't have the mental development to understand nuance and it works while they are still young. However, if you don't go back when they are more mentally developed and explain the nuances when they figure out that one thing you told them was BS, they figure everything you told them was BS. This is the psychological reason D.A.R.E has essentially zero residual effects post 8th grade. Psychologically, the failure makes sense. There are numerous exaamples of this phenomena just within US public education.

In the same vein I would be concerned that teaching IS loaded instead of TREAT as loaded would eventually, as the person is more experienced lead to a similar mental state that dismisses not only the obviously false rule, but to be by extension overly casual about the rest of the rules. All that being said, it is far more likely to be an issue with teaching youth than adults. Most adults will see it as splitting hairs as already mentioned in this thread. I was always taught "treat" including in professionally taught classes and phrase it that way myself. Obviously from the above Gunsight teaches "is" and is certainly a premier traning facility. Everything evolves and not everyone agrees on the direction or pace.

Anyway, I think I have beaten this dead horse enough. Turned into an interesting introduction thread. I've learned a ffew things.

 

[wrightme]

My personal preferences are as follows:

1) Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.

2) Only point a firearm at something you are willing to have big hole placed in.

3) Only place your finger upon the trigger if the firearm is pointed at something that you DESIRE to have a big hole in.


I like these because they are clear, and unambiguous.

 

[ncwabbit]

congradulations mac702...well read forum member...

deepdiver, what pedagogy research do you refer to?

wabbit

 

[deepdiver]

congradulations mac702...well read forum member...

deepdiver, what pedagogy research do you refer to?

wabbit

It wasn't teaching/educatonal research being done at that time at least, but rather psychology research. I can't quote you a particular study anymore as I have been away from it too long despite my being a TA and research asistant to a psych professor doing some research on the matter. I do recall that in the late 90s or early 2000s the concepts were being studied in relation to DARE programs and a former psych professor piqued my intersted enough about it to cause me to go to the local university library and look at some of the current research but again, I can't quote it.

 

[DVC]

Then it is simply amazing that I didn't argue against each point.

See? You're doing it again!

As for 'follow' anyone? No. I am not a 'follower of Ayoob,' any more than I am a detractor from others. I think for myself.

Sorry, then. Your beliefs are in line with those of Ayoob, some of which I don't agree with.

In fact, I will actually take it one step further. If you encounter ANYONE who is so sloppy in handling that you have to tell them 'ALL FIREARMS ARE LOADED,' take it from them, don't let them EVER handle them around you, and get away.

During the years that I was around, one could only take training at Gunsite if you met the qualifications (primarily law enforcement, military, judges, legislators, etc). Students in the first class that I attended included some pretty authoritative folks.

And there was that sign, listing the rules, and the first thing that the Colonel did, Monday morning, was give the briefing.

Like everything else at Gunsite, everything else in the Modern Technique, everything on the GSP, it was there for a reason. The Colonel's motto was "Everything you need, nothing you don't!" If HE felt the need to have that sign and take the time to give that briefing to people like Navy SEALs, Secret Service and FBI agents, and the rest of us, I'm going to go along with the idea that it was necessary.

As I say, show me a better doctrine than the Colonel taught, and I will follow it. Until then, I'll stay with what I learned at the feet of the Guru.

 

[deepdiver]

As I say, show me a better doctrine than the Colonel taught, and I will follow it. Until then, I'll stay with what I learned at the feet of the Guru.

Really, there is nothing, strictly speaking, contrary to what Col Cooper taught, but everything evolves and adjusts. Sometimes it is just something minor like a wording change, sometimes a concept just develops. Being the pioneer in an area as was Jeff Cooper, does not mean that the very sound premises won't develop in some way. For example:

1) ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded. No Exceptions!
- I learned treat every gun as if it is loaded

2) NEVER allow the muzzle to cover anything that you are not willing to DESTROY.
- I learned never allow the muzzle/gun point at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy

3) Keep your finger OFF the trigger until your sights are ON THE TARGET.
- I learned keep your finger off the trigger until you are prepared to fire

4) BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET.
- I learned be sure of your target AND what is behind it

One could argue that the list you posted as Col Coopers original is great for, as you described, people who are firearm related professionals. The very similar rules as taught to me perhaps make more sense to civilians training to personal defense and carry. I especially see that in #4. I think the addition of "and what's behind it" is an especially important addition to people preparing to carry a firearm in public. It reminds you that the bullet is going to go somewhere, a matter stressed in that class an the others I have taken since.

I honestly don't remember the exact verbiage of the 4 rules as I first learned them decades ago (or at least it seems that long - I really don't remember exactly as I seem to have always known them) but in my CC class, taught by an LEO instructor, they were taught as set out above. A friend's retired military/US Marshall father who just started teaching CC classes which she is in also taught her the rules as I learned them from an early age. I'm not saying that makes one version more valid than the other, but rather that both versions are out there in the firearms world.

Not trying to take anything away from Col Cooper and his brilliance and standard setting in this area. Any time I take a newbie to the range, I emphasize those rules. Does the wording difference matter in that case? I think the slight alterations may make a little more sense to a newbie. Maybe not. I know that teaching them also reminds me to be sure that I follow them and not become complacent out of familiarity. Following Rule 1, regardless of how it is worded, recently prevented my having a stupid ND at a friend's house during a moment of distraction

It is an interesting discussion that while superficially is semantics, goes beyond that in many regards. While we may not agree on every word, we certainly agree that those 4 basic tenants of firearm handling and use are as valuable, important and applicable today as they were on the day Col Cooper first postulated them and that his wisdom will long live within the firearm community.

 

[Gil223]

Just my thoughts...

We should try to keep in mind that the only person any of us will always be in 100% agreement with is ourself. Expect some disagreement over philosophies, principles and techniques, but try to avoid becoming a doryphore (1. doryphore: A person who delights in pointing out trivial mistakes or errors made by others). OC, in all it's facets, presents an interesting subject for open discussion, but we should all try to keep it light and fun... and certainly avoid name calling and personal attacks. (Like elections - if you want to vote for somebody with whom you agree completely, you'll have to write-in your own name) :uhoh: I'm just sayin'
Pax...

 

[wrightme]

We should try to keep in mind that the only person any of us will always be in 100% agreement with is ourself. Expect some disagreement over philosophies, principles and techniques, but try to avoid becoming a doryphore (1. doryphore: A person who delights in pointing out trivial mistakes or errors made by others). OC, in all it's facets, presents an interesting subject for open discussion, but we should all try to keep it light and fun... and certainly avoid name calling and personal attacks. (Like elections - if you want to vote for somebody with whom you agree completely, you'll have to write-in your own name) :uhoh: I'm just sayin'
Pax...

Well, yes and no. As example, while the difference between "present ID" and "identify yourself" might seem trivial, the difference is night and day wrt compliance with applicable statutes. Some things ARE trivial differences. Others are not trivial.

 

[Gil223]

Well, yes and no. As example, while the difference between "present ID" and "identify yourself" might seem trivial, the difference is night and day wrt compliance with applicable statutes. Some things ARE trivial differences. Others are not trivial.

Unfortunately, the phrase "applicable statutes" lacks specificity - which is "not trivial". There will necessarily be variations between state statutes, since they are implemented by individual state legislatures. There should be no variations in federal statutes (other than perhaps in the understanding, and methods involved in application/enforcement). But, there are, and those deviations exist because of the different personalities involved in interpreting the federal laws (which is why we have Justice Courts, District Courts, Circuit Courts, Apellate Courts, and State and Federal Supreme Courts). And, when it comes to lawyers and judges,they all seem to think their interpretation is THE 'correct' one. (The difference between God and a lawyer is that God doesn't think He is a lawyer.)

And, speaking of 'differences' - old Sam Clemens (as his alter ego Mark Twain) once said, "The difference between the right word, and the almost right word, is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Mr. Clemens-Twain was an astute observer of the conditions involved in being human, and what is or is not trivial often depends on how much of a personal investment a person has in the outcome. Lawyers are notorious for "splitting hairs"! Their financial well-being is totally dependent upon their ability to either create a mountain from a molehill, or to reduce a mountain to a molehill (no direspect is meant to any lawyers who may frequent here. We all know that it's the other 99%, that gives the 1% to which you belong a bad name).

There's a saying that's popular among my peers - "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." 'Nit picking' is only necessary if one has body lice, and to indulge in it unnecessarily is to pave the way for discord in our discussions.

The preceding is nothing more than MNSHO (there may be a lawyer somewhere in my family tree - probably hanging from a branch), and I'm certain that there are other points of view. (Sometimes, I just get caught up in the mellifluence of the way words come together to explain a thought - sorta like the way libs did in November of 2008) :uhoh: Pax...

 

[wrightme]

Unfortunately, the phrase "applicable statutes" lacks specificity - which is "not trivial". There will necessarily be variations between state statutes, since they are implemented by individual state legislatures. There should be no variations in federal statutes (other than perhaps in the understanding, and methods involved in application/enforcement). But, there are, and those deviations exist because of the different personalities involved in interpreting the federal laws (which is why we have Justice Courts, District Courts, Circuit Courts, Apellate Courts, and State and Federal Supreme Courts). And, when it comes to lawyers and judges,they all seem to think their interpretation is THE 'correct' one. (The difference between God and a lawyer is that God doesn't think He is a lawyer.)

When we are in discussions about "Stop & Identify", the applicable statutes ARE the state statutes, according to SCOTUS ruling in Hiibel. There isn't a federal statute for such.

 

[Gil223]

When we are in discussions about "Stop & Identify", the applicable statutes ARE the state statutes, according to SCOTUS ruling in Hiibel. There isn't a federal statute for such.

If you look at it again, my reference is not specifically aimed at "Stop and Identify" statutes... it addresses statutes only in a general sense. (Has anybody tried telling a 'Homeboy' Security Agent, or any federal Lagent, that he/she has no right to stop you and identify yourself? Speaking of feds, I thought I'd share this with y'all...

View attachment 7818​

 

[wrightme]

If you look at it again, my reference is not specifically aimed at "Stop and Identify" statutes... it addresses statutes only in a general sense. (Has anybody tried telling a 'Homeboy' Security Agent, or any federal Lagent, that he/she has no right to stop you and identify yourself? Speaking of feds, I thought I'd share this with y'all...

View attachment 7818​

If you think that matters, go find a federal 'stop and identify' statute to reference.....

Better yet, look for that in Hiibel.

AND, subsequently to that, verify the point I started this with; namely, the difference between 'identify yourself,' and 'present ID.' Even given all the obfuscation you presented, the nuance is vital.

 

[Gil223]

If you think that matters, go find a federal 'stop and identify' statute to reference.....

I'll type this slowly so you can follow it. Federal statutes don't matter a whit. The only reason the feds were mentioned was as a 'compare and contrast' against state statutes for the purpose of showing consistency (one federal statute) vs inconsistency (many differing statutes between states wrt any 'state law').

Better yet, look for that in Hiibel.

Hiibel doesn't address the presence of a federal statute, or a lack thereof. The Supreme Court simply upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute, reasoning that requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes was not unreasonable. (I don't see that as unreasonable myself)

AND, subsequently to that, verify the point I started this with; namely, the difference between 'identify yourself,' and 'present ID.' Even given all the obfuscation you presented, the nuance is vital.

I'm sure there must be some obscure difference for you to get so wound-up over it. It's the kind of thing that would really get a lawyer going, inasmuch as they all seem to thrive on contention, and creating an issue where there really was none to begin with. As a matter of curiosity, I wonder exactly what it took to drag this thread away from the OPs innocuous question - which essentially says, "new gun, where can I get some training locally?" - into a running gun battle and tirade about NVs "stop and identify" law? On second thought... I don't really care. Lawyers have mastered the art of obfuscation... some smoke, a few mirrors, some weasel-words and a lightshow, and... **POOF**... the subject is changed! I'm done discussing this non-issue. Pax...

 

[wrightme]

I'll type this slowly so you can follow it. Federal statutes don't matter a whit. The only reason the feds were mentioned was as a 'compare and contrast' against state statutes for the purpose of showing consistency (one federal statute) vs inconsistency (many differing statutes between states wrt any 'state law').

First off, you do not gain credibility by being condescending.
Second, you attempted to mention feds and showing ID, as if there was actual statute that requires it. If there isn't, tough crap.

Hiibel doesn't address the presence of a federal statute, or a lack thereof. The Supreme Court simply upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute, reasoning that requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes was not unreasonable. (I don't see that as unreasonable myself)

I suggest that there is a very good reason that SCOTUS didn't mention a non-existent federal statute.

I'm sure there must be some obscure difference for you to get so wound-up over it. It's the kind of thing that would really get a lawyer going, inasmuch as they all seem to thrive on contention, and creating an issue where there really was none to begin with. As a matter of curiosity, I wonder exactly what it took to drag this thread away from the OPs innocuous question - which essentially says, "new gun, where can I get some training locally?" - into a running gun battle and tirade about NVs "stop and identify" law? On second thought... I don't really care. Lawyers have mastered the art of obfuscation... some smoke, a few mirrors, some weasel-words and a lightshow, and... **POOF**, the subject is changed! I'm done discussing this non-issue. Pax...

??? 'some obscure difference?'

There is a large difference between "identify yourself" and "present identification." THAT is exactly what I presented as a 'niggle' that is very critical in how a person handles interactions with LE.

If you look at it again, my reference is not specifically aimed at "Stop and Identify" statutes... it addresses statutes only in a general sense. (Has anybody tried telling a 'Homeboy' Security Agent, or any federal Lagent, that he/she has no right to stop you and identify yourself?

You referenced feds, and identification, so there must be some federal statute you can cite that gives that authority to the feds.

And, MY reference was specifically aimed at "Stop and Identify" statutes, so why you are even bringing federal into the discussion is beyond me.


I mentioned the ID vs Identify specifically to highlight a case where being precise matters. Instead of discussing this, you tossed up the red herring of "applicable statutes," as if it actually had bearing on my point.

It didn't.

 

[Gil223]

"I try to avoid arguments with fools as they tend to drag people down to their level - where they've had much more practice."
'nuff said. Pax...

 

[wrightme]

"I try to avoid arguments with fools as they tend to drag people down to their level - where they've had much more practice."
'nuff said. Pax...

More than enough has been said by you, before your current insulting post.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I thought gil223 was a "breath of fresh air" while I might not of agreed with him 100% I was interestd in his information, and see no reason to cut a man off at the knees, like Wrightme did when gil223 was stating his opinion, which is what this forum is for..right? Not to mention he was from out of State, I hope Nevada does not get a reputation of treating our guests like this

 

[Gil223]

More than enough has been said by you, before your current insulting post.

You took my quote personally?? (Y'know, a couple of other traits of lawyers is that they believe everything is about them, and that they must have the last word.) I didn't mention "wrightme", nor did I quote any of your posts. It must be one of those "If the shoe fits..." things. When I said "I'm done discussing this non-issue." what I really meant was "I'm done discussing this non-issue." Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension, rather than digging in the yard for 'bones of contention'. (Definition of COMPREHENSION [as it applies here]: 1. a: the act or action of grasping with the intellect : understanding). I don't know that you are totally incapable of reading for understanding - but you certainly seem disinclined of it. I can visualize your listing in the phone book - 'me_wright'. Pax...