On safety for the real world

J

JimConway

Instructor
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
946
Likes
92
Location
Pepperell, MA
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
In the thread on weapon mounted light, there were several people bothers by the fact that they would end up covering somebody while using the light. the following is my take on real world safety. Please try to read this with an open mind and don't go the walmart to buy your heretic burning kits until you have read and digested the material.
What I teach and believe is the there are three safeties.

The first safety is your mind. If your mind is not engaged and alert to the situation around you, you have no business with a gun in your hand. PERIOD.

The second safety is your educated trigger finger which is in index along the frame until your mind decided that you need to shoot. You will know that you have learned this when you pick up your cordless drill or even a spray bottle and find that your trigger finger is in index above the trigger.

The final safety is the mechanical safety on the gun. I believe that if the gun is in your hand the safety should be disengaged. The only time that the safety is engaged is when you are transitioning to a back up weapon or prior to reholstering.

We all, hopefully, know the Safety rules espoused by Jeff Cooper which are quoted below for those that need a reminder.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

These rules were developed to address square range safety and can do an superb job if adhered to. In my conversations with Jeff Cooper, it was clear that, in a real world situation, only any 3 of the 4 rules had to be adhered to to achieve safety. My take on these rules is that rules III and IV need some rewording to address the realities of a life threatening event.

Consider Rule II about the muzzle and ask your self if you can draw your gun without covering your self. Consider trying to draw you weapon while at the driver's seat of your car. Could you or would you draw your weapon without covering yourself while Bubba was rushing at you with a baseball bat, or whatever, and yelling about all of the wonderous things that he plans to do to you and yours. I suggest that a better version of the rule should be:

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING OR ANYONE UNINTENTION ALLY

Now consider rule III about when to have your finger on the trigger and remember that you may have to shoot with the gun anywhere between retention and full extention. You may even decide that point shooting is appropriate (heaven forbid). Therefore, I suggest that a better wording would be:

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR MIND HAS MADE A DECISION TO SHOOT

My version of the 4 safety rules is as follows:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING OR ANYONE UNINTENTION ALLY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR MIND HAS MADE A DECISION TO SHOOT
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
 
Pilgrim said:
Jim, I agree with you about how number 2 is VERY difficult to observe at all times.

Even just pulling out your IWB carry will likely expose some part of your body to your muzzle.
Click to expand...

Which is why you really need to make sure you adhere to keeping your finger off the trigger. I use a Windex bottle as a training aide in my classes to drive that point home, as well as a caulking gun. I tell the students that when they grab something like that and they see their finger is not on the "trigger", then they know they're getting the hang of it.

Good post Jim.
 
The spray bottle

Lynne

It is funny that you use a spray bottle as a training aid. A while back my wife told me that she thought that she had the finger off the trigger bit into muscle memory when she noticed how she holds a syray botttle. I said Bravo and mentioned how well she had progressed.
 
In the thread on weapon mounted light, there were several people bothers by the fact that they would end up covering somebody while using the light.
Click to expand...
Which, as was pointed out on that thread, is something of a canard, because a surefire is bright enough that you can keep the light (and thus the gun) pointed in a safe direction while still lighting up the room with bounced light. [slap]
 
Covering with a light

M1911

It realy does not matter whether the light is hand-held or weapon mounted. there is a good likelyhood that you could cover someone with your weapon. The reason for this is that O'dark hundred hours, when you search, the gun, the light, and your eyes all work together. Just consider the Harries position and note that the light is right beside the bore of the gun. As such, where you are looking is where the gun is pointing. Remember that when the light is on, you better be ready to shoot because every BG knows that you are there.

There are a number of techniques to overcome this situation. The simplest is these is to never have the light on for more than 1 or 2 seconds before you turn it off and move.

Remember that there are several reasons to have a light, as follows:
First and most important, is so that you can navigate in a dark space without falling down.
Secondly is to find a identify any BGs in the area that you are searching
And, finally to shoot, if other compliance methods fail.

Just as a tidbit of information, we have found that most people shoot better groups when shooting in the dark with a light. Does anyone have any idea why this is true??
 
Last edited:
The reason for this is that O'dark hundred hours, when you search, the gun, the light, and your eyes all work together. Just consider the Harries position and note that the light is right beside the bore of the gun.
Click to expand...
!@#$@@!!

Why is it so hard to get this across. Deep breaths....

If you are using Harries or weapon-mounted light or Rogers/Surefire or <insert your favorite technique here> you don't have to point the light (and thus the gun) at a person to identify that they are a threat. You can have your gun in a compressed low-ready or high-ready position, bouncing the light off the floor or ceiling.

Doing so reduces your likelihood of covering a person who may not be a threat. Downside, of course, is that now it will take you longer to get on target.

Yes, you can search using the "third eye technique" -- with your eyes following the gun. You can do that with Harries, or weapon-mounted light or Rogers/surefire or whatever. And you may then end up covering someone with the muzzle before you have identified them as a threat.

The knock on weapon-mounted lights in the previous thread was that you would cover them with the gun when you illuminated them. The people opposed to such techniques clearly were not envisioning searching using the "third eye technique" because that, as you pointed out, results in the same problem no matter whether the light is mounted or not. So, if you are using a handheld light, and you are not searching using the "third eye technique", then there will also be a lag between identifying a threat and getting the gun on target.

My point is that there is no need to point the flashlight (and thus the gun) directly into a room to illuminate it enough to see a threat (I am presupposing your average household room, not a large commercial facility). So the criticism of weapon mounted lights as requiring you to point the gun at an unidentified target is, IMNSHO, incorrect.

And as Round Gun Shooter pointed out, searching your home is generally contra-indicated. If you are barricaded in your bedroom, then you have a pretty good idea that the person busting down the bedroom door is not there to present you a check from Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. With a weapon-mounted light, you can have your handgun in one hand and your portable phone in the other as you talk to the dispatcher.

Oh well. I give up. Apparently I'm unable to communicate this point.
 
Last edited:
JimConway said:
The second safety is your educated trigger finger which is in index along the frame until your mind decided that you need to shoot. You will know that you have learned this when you pick up your cordless drill or even a spray bottle and find that your trigger finger is in index above the trigger.
Click to expand...

Highlight added by me. That is my point on the entire discussion in the other thread. Advising someone you do not know a weapon light is a good idea is assuming they have that educated trigger finger.

I have trained LE professionals who thought they had educated trigger fingers until the ND happened. I have also searched buildings in the dark with inferior lights and know first hand what a startle reaction is and I am thankful every day since I had the educated trigger finger and good discipline or that antique mirror would be toast.[wink]

When you train you train in controlled situations. When the real thing happens you realize whether your training was good or not. Someone inexperienced in these situations will be close to wetting themselves when the real thing happens. Trigger discipline, unless ingrained into their first safety will go out the windo and they will be trying to survive. They will point that light and firearm at someone/something and will not even realize it went off.

They are better to use a separate light and a one hand hold on the firearm and need an added thought to release a projectile that they can not call back.

Opinions are worth what you pay for them. Mine are free and thus worth that much [wink]

M1911, I understand your point but I disagree with it. (Sorry)
 
Last edited:
JimConway said:
In the thread on weapon mounted light, there were several people bothers by the fact that they would end up covering somebody while using the light. the following is my take on real world safety. Please try to read this with an open mind and don't go the walmart to buy your heretic burning kits until you have read and digested the material.
What I teach and believe is the there are three safeties.

The first safety is your mind. If your mind is not engaged and alert to the situation around you, you have no business with a gun in your hand. PERIOD.

The second safety is your educated trigger finger which is in index along the frame until your mind decided that you need to shoot. You will know that you have learned this when you pick up your cordless drill or even a spray bottle and find that your trigger finger is in index above the trigger.

The final safety is the mechanical safety on the gun. I believe that if the gun is in your hand the safety should be disengaged. The only time that the safety is engaged is when you are transitioning to a back up weapon or prior to reholstering.

We all, hopefully, know the Safety rules espoused by Jeff Cooper which are quoted below for those that need a reminder.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

These rules were developed to address square range safety and can do an superb job if adhered to. In my conversations with Jeff Cooper, it was clear that, in a real world situation, only any 3 of the 4 rules had to be adhered to to achieve safety. My take on these rules is that rules III and IV need some rewording to address the realities of a life threatening event.

Consider Rule II about the muzzle and ask your self if you can draw your gun without covering your self. Consider trying to draw you weapon while at the driver's seat of your car. Could you or would you draw your weapon without covering yourself while Bubba was rushing at you with a baseball bat, or whatever, and yelling about all of the wonderous things that he plans to do to you and yours. I suggest that a better version of the rule should be:

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING OR ANYONE UNINTENTION ALLY

Now consider rule III about when to have your finger on the trigger and remember that you may have to shoot with the gun anywhere between retention and full extention. You may even decide that point shooting is appropriate (heaven forbid). Therefore, I suggest that a better wording would be:

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR MIND HAS MADE A DECISION TO SHOOT

My version of the 4 safety rules is as follows:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING OR ANYONE UNINTENTION ALLY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR MIND HAS MADE A DECISION TO SHOOT
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you. Further I believe you to be negligent and reckless if you are teaching your modified rules to students.

Rule number II as written by cooper applies to fighting as well as to daily handling or range shooting. If you are not willing to take a human life, do not cover a person with the muzzle! This rule also applies to your own person. One should not allow the muzzle to cover your extremities! And no, I would not cover myself when drawing in a car even if Bubba was approaching with a bat.

Rule number III should also always apply. 99.9999999% of people including you do not have the skill to point shoot reliably, accurately or safely. That is unless you claim to possess the skills of Bob Munden. Never fire a shot unless the sights are superimposed on the target and you have made a conscious decision to fire. Weaver allows for aimed firing with the gun very close to the boby if need be. Firing an unaligned pistol in a fight gains nothing.

Now of course if a 300 pounder is sitting on your chest with a knife to your throat safety rules don't apply while reaching for the gun in your ankle holster. But that is not the context in which you presented your ideas.

You actually advocate changing the rules. You are wrong.
 
Rule number II as written by cooper applies to fighting as well as to daily handling or range shooting. If you are not willing to take a human life, do not cover a person with the muzzle! This rule also applies to your own person. One should not allow the muzzle to cover your extremities! And no, I would not cover myself when drawing in a car even if Bubba was approaching with a bat.

Rule number III should also always apply. 99.9999999% of people including you do not have the skill to point shoot reliably, accurately or safely. That is unless you claim to possess the skills of Bob Munden. Never fire a shot unless the sights are superimposed on the target and you have made a conscious decision to fire. Weaver allows for aimed firing with the gun very close to the boby if need be. Firing an unaligned pistol in a fight gains nothing.

Now of course if a 300 pounder is sitting on your chest with a knife to your throat safety rules don't apply while reaching for the gun in your ankle holster. But that is not the context in which you presented your ideas.

You actually advocate changing the rules. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

First you need to remember that I was describing gun handling in a life threatening event. It could be your life or the life of a loved one. I may be wrong, but I think that a "300 pounder" sitting on my chest is in the life threatening category.

Your comments on Rule II, it is clear that you have developed a draw that does not cover any part of your body. This I would very much like to see because neither you nor anyone else has ever done it during a life threatening event when small fractions of a second are all that you have. Someone once asked how long they should have to draw a weapon and I quoted John Farnam who said "the rest of your life"

As far as your comment about "not covering myself when drawing in a car", the only thing I can say is that you have no idea how fast one of these situations goes down. I value my life a great deal more that I am worried about the small chance of a problem involved in covering myself. This is a square range mentality thing and if you have any intention of surviving anything more than someone with a water pistol, I suggest that you get some force on force training and learn something about staying alive.

I am have a hard time finding a way to respond to your comments about Rule III, with getting irate and saying thing that I should not. While I never mentioned point shooting, you did and I will address. Do know that point shooting is ALL that is taught to police officers in Vermont? Do you know that they do it very well? This past weekend, I gave a 5 minute lesson on point shooting to another forum member. After that lesson and my demonstration, he was shooting 2" groups very fast at 8 yards (several of his shot strings were shot while moving), every single time, including the first time. I guess that I must have imagined it, because you, with all of your hard earned square range knowledge, say that it is impossible.

You stated that "Firing an unaligned pistol in a fight gains nothing." Since yoiu seem to admire Jeff Cooper so much, I must ask how you can reconcile your comment with his teaching about a "hammer" or a "flash sight picture"? The simple answer is that you can not. I have met Jeff Cooper, trained under hin, spent time with him, and have even been in his home. All that you know is what some hack gun writter thinks that he said or meant.

In a real world situation I will begin firing at the BG as soon as my gun comes into a horizontal position and will continue shooting as the gun is extended toward the BG. I WILL get good hits and , if you do no believe this, just ask anyone that has shot with me. I am far from the best shot in the world, but I have had the training to know how to survive and hit where I intend to, even while moving.

You comments about the weaver position are absurd in a gun fight. Your beautiful square range Weaver just will not happen in the real world. You will not have the time to set your feet, properly blade you body and get the nice push-pull with, of course, a proper balanced grip on the gun. You will simply shoot wherever you feet are and wherever your arms need to be.

I appreciate any and all comments and I try to respond with a civil tone. This is the last time that I will make any responses to a keyboard commando whose idea of shooting is limited to a square range.

My comments about safety were, and are, about safety in a life or death situation. I hope that none of us ever have to make that choice. If your choices are as you described, all that i can say to you is Good Luck
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimConway said:
Just as a tidbit of information, we have found that most people shoot better groups when shooting in the dark with a light. Does anyone have any idea why this is true??
Click to expand...

It is a focus issue. With less to see, you actually see that which is visible more clearly. Of course, this enhanced 'Tunnel Vision' has an extremely dangerous side effect. You most likely will not see threats to the side. This can be clearly demonstrated by revealing a 'threat' target to a shooter while they are engaged in the primary target. More times than not, the second threat will not even be seen.

As for the muzzle sweep issues, only a fool would think for a moment that total 100% muzzle safety is possible. As with any technique taught, the ideal is taught to beginners so that very simple concepts can be drilled for safety. We teach beginner drivers to keep their hands at 10 and 2. We train beginner motorcyclists to exaggerate looking into a turn. We train swimmers to learn to blow bubbles.

WHY?

Drivers have more control with both hands on the wheel. That's great until you learn later that you need to sometimes do other things with your hands and you make CONSCIOUS decisions to break a safety rule for that purpose.

You look into turns so that your body naturally flows and so that you can see where you are going. Later, you might find that watching traffic patterns while you turn may be more important. You make a CONSCIOUS decision to break a safety rule for that purpose.

When life guards train, they are taught how to jump into water and swim with their heads up so that they never lose sight of the victim. While head down and blowing bubbles is more efficient, in some cases, efficiency is not as important. You make a CONSCIOUS decision to break a rule for that purpose.

I seriously doubt that Jim would ever promote his 'adjusted' rules for new shooters. And in many cases, this very discussion may be completely inappropriate on an open forum because of it. However, in an advanced class where people are learning the techniques to stay alive, certain CONSCIOUS decisions will be made that violate the "Rules". That is OK so long as the reason and the possible consequences are also presented.

One of the hardest parts I found in designing IDPA stages was to develop start positions and transitions that did not encourage safety violations. In the 'real world' where your life is on the line, you CAN make CONSCIOUS decisions to violate rules for survival, but in a game, that is NEVER an option.

To survive, you can "Cheat to Win".

The difference between an advanced student in the art of defensive arms and one that is not advanced is knowing those things which can get you killed and how to weigh error against safety to find the proper course of action to ensure survival while minimizing any liabilities. AND, the ability to make those decisions almost automatically.

For example, I cringe everytime I see IDPA or IPSC stages that ask you to draw while seated simply because there is no way to do this such that every shooter will not have a muzzle violation in the process.

Even the art of reholstering seems to be lost on the vast majority of competitors. There ARE ways to reholster that eliminate or minimize the sweep of the muzzle on your body and yet I can't attend a match and not watch at least half the people point right through their leg in the process.

I like to mention competition when I call out examples because these are places that have ABSOLUTELY no reason for safety violations. There is no weight on safety vs. life here.

But, when survival is a factor, the advanced student needs to know the risks and hazards associated with various techniques that are optimized in saving your life. Lets face it, how many shooters out there have taken true defensive courses where the goal is to win a gunfight for your life? The NRA does not teach these. Many of the big schools don't even teach them until you reach the 3rd or 4th level of courses. Why? Because to be the best shot as quickly as you can in defense of your life, you HAVE to break rules.

Heck, everyone knows the first big rule you break when you fight for your life. You cause trauma to another person. Hello? Hasn't shooting someone always been a major no-no? And yet, everyone seems to accept that break in the rules as acceptable for the situation.

Why then is it so hard to grasp the fact that breaking, or better phrased, Modifying certain 'cast in stone' rules is any less possible in certain situations?

I've stressed "Advanced Student" over and over. This is a VERY important concept. Until your actions as a shooter happen without thought, you are not ready for the exceptions. Muzzle consciousness, finger discipline, and target awareness are skills that ONLY come with time and practice. These MUST be honed to a fine level before ANY discussion of the exceptions can truly begin. Even then, errors will and do occur. It is because of the potential for errors that the high skill level is even more important. As Jim said, you can violate one of the rules and still remain 'safe'. You want the ONLY violation to be the one you CONSCIOUSLY made.

So, are you that "Advanced Student" that has the ability to decide when it is OK to modify certain rules? If you answer yes, you most likely are not. The only person who can truly answer that question is your NEXT instructor who has to evaluate your current skills at the time of instruction.

I can only strongly caution ALL shooters that until you know the advanced techniques and have had the proper training as to the whys and hows of the theory as well as a LOT of dry runs under the eye of an instructor, forget the whole "exception" concept and focus on drilling your own safe handling.
 
Chris

"So, are you that "Advanced Student" that has the ability to decide when it is OK to modify certain rules? If you answer yes, you most likely are not. The only person who can truly answer that question is your NEXT instructor who has to evaluate your current skills at the time of instruction."

I think that you nailed it. The problem is in defining what an advanced student is. The only way that I know of is to watch the student go through several exercises. I have learned that you can not take their word when it comes to discussing shooting ability. When I say advanced, I do not mean that their shooting skills are on an advanced level but rather that their mental processes are on an advanced level relative to shooting.

There are a number of studies relative to our opinions of our own abilites. The gist of these studies show that people with lower skill levels always over-rate themselves and those with higher skill levels always under-rate themselves.

Consider the simple act of drawing or reholstering a gun. It is a certainty the some part of the body will be covered. Yes we could avoid the problem by mandating that the shooter wear a holster with a massive offset, but who would wear it. That is why it is important that this simple act must be learned under close supervision. Even with the extreme close supervision at Frontsight, the only three accidents in their history all occured while reholstering. Every man and woman believes that they know how to draw a gun and they are wrong, without instruction.

Remember that there are no advanced gun fights and all that we have to fall back on is our ability to perform the basics, fast and smooth.

You also said "To survive, you can "Cheat to Win" and you are again right.
At best a gun fight is a chaotic, fast moving affair. There are no rules and there is no "Code of the West". There are not even any rest breaks. In a gun fight there are only two possible roles for you to play. You either start the fight (ambusher) or you react to the ambush (ambushee). If you are aware enough and trained enough to know the signs of problems, you may be able to either avoid the developing situation and walk away or be proactive enough (cheat like hell) to already have, for example, you gun in your hand. I am not going any further with this audience with proactive techniques, but you get the idea.
Let me close with a quote by Clint Smith "Always cheat, Always win"
Actually, the word cheat is a bit of an oxymoron, because we all know that there are no rules in a gun fight.
 
Last edited:
JimConway said:
Do know that point shooting is ALL that is taught to police officers in Vermont? Do you know that they do it very well?
Click to expand...

You need to check your information before posting these things. This is definitely not true.

Before posting this I checked with a friend that in an instructor for Vermont SP and does municipal training as well. They teach aimed fire and point shooting in their academy.

Regards,
 
Point Shooting in VT

Round gun
I assume that you are correct. My info comes from a officer in a VT Sheriff's office. He has mentioned countless times that he has to coach his officers on the fine points of point shooting for their qualifications. He also has stated the they must point shoot for their qualifications.

As an additional piece of info, there is a town here in NH that has shifted all of their firearm training to point shooting
 
JimConway said:
Round gun
I assume that you are correct. My info comes from a officer in a VT Sheriff's office. He has mentioned countless times that he has to coach his officers on the fine points of point shooting for their qualifications. He also has stated the they must point shoot for their qualifications.

As an additional piece of info, there is a town here in NH that has shifted all of their firearm training to point shooting
Click to expand...

My info is from a training officer for the State Academies.

Point shooting is a necessary skill in any defensive scenario as is aimed fire.
 
Jim, I agree with your commentary wholeheartedly.... while safety is
important, when the shit hits the fan the dynamics defining what is and
isn't safe, all of a sudden change in an instant. For instance, when troops
are in battle, often times shots may have to be made when your friends
are not more than a little ways out of your field of fire. Through proper
training (especially trigger discipline!) the risk can thankfully be managed.

-Mike
 
Sorry for the late response but I have been straight out.

I was going to keep quiet about JimConway’s fraudulent and dishonest post and was happy to remain silent and just debate the idea of changing safety rules. I typed up a quick response with some of my own copy and paste to see what would happen. That is until I read his reply to my opinion.

In his reply he lied about not mentioning point shooting in his original post, indicated that he was finding it difficult to not get irate, and referred to me as a key board commando. So JimConway I have changed my mind. If you are going to write such things at least do so when it is pertaining to your own material.

I will expose the fraudulent nature of his post in just a minute. I will first clear up my position.

I was reasonably clear in my initial response that I was opposed to changing the safety rules. In both my introduction and conclusion I point out that I am opposed to teaching modified safety rules and changing safety rules. I did not state that rules should not be broken. I even gave an example when they would need to be broken. In fact I am among those who believe that rules were meant to be broken.

The problem lies with human nature. It is always difficult to achieve 100% of a goal. As the old saying indicates we reach the moon when shooting for the stars.

When dealing with goals such as gun safety the rules should be the rules. It is true that under certain conditions these rules will need to be broken. But if we change the rules in order to match these rather rare conditions then safety standards will diminish and people training for self defense will end up getting injured. As you can imagine continuing this concept would lead to a downward spiral until there are no safety rules left at all. Changing the safety rules is unnecessary. After all, what kind of idiot would sacrifice his life in order to not break a rule?

Now let’s get on to the dishonesty in JimConway’s first post. When I first read what he claims to be his opinion I realized that I had read this same opinion before. You see the ideas presented here by JimConway as his own are really those of Gabe Suarez.

As a reminder JimConway said:

“the following is my take on real world safety”,

“My take on these rules is that rules III and IV need some rewording…”

“My version of the 4 safety rules is as follows:”

Compare the following evidence to see a few examples of the fraud.

JimConway’s new Rule II: “NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING OR ANYONE UNINTENTION ALLY”

Gabe Suarez’s new Rule Two: “Never let the muzzle unintentionally cover anything you are not willing to destroy.”

JimConway’s new Rule III: “KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR MIND HAS MADE A DECISION TO SHOOT”

Gabe Suarez’s new Rule III: “Keep your finger off the trigger, and indexed on the frame, until you’ve made a conscious decision to shoot.”

JimConway says: “Consider trying to draw you weapon while at the driver's seat of your car. Could you or would you draw your weapon without covering yourself…”

Gabe Suarez says: “Similarly, it may be necessary to sweep past your leg when drawing from a seated position, such as in a vehicle driver’s seat.”

Read Gabe Suarez’s full write up entitled True Gun Safety here:

http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/truegunsafety.html

Draw your own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Cato said:
Now let’s get on to the dishonesty in JimConway’s first post. When I first read what he claims to be his opinion I realized that I had read this same opinion before. You see the ideas presented here by JimConway as his own are really those Gabe Suarez.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Jim works for Suarez Intl.... so you trying to say that he's "plagiarizing"
is a bit weak, to put it mildly. I guess it's a sin to repeat someone
else's advice.

Frankly I don't see Jim being "dishonest" at all here.

-Mike
 
I would think it's possible that two men working together teaching gun safety like Jim and Suarez might reach the same conclusions. In my field we used to call it brainstorming, when a couple of guys (or gals) sat around and discussed ways to do things differently.

That doesn't mean if we then used the same techniques we were "plagiarizing" each other.

I'm not saying I agree with changing the rules, but I think the statements being made are off the mark.

Just sayin'


PS, I thought there was one rule always in a gun fight? Have a gun! Darn, people keep changing the basics on me.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Suarez

Just to be completely clear. I am a Suarez International - Certified Instructor.
I have trained with Gabe a number of times and was deeply honored when he asked me to join him in teaching material that I deeply believe in. I assume that cato must also think that I am plagiarizing even when I teach a Suarez course.

I stand by and believe in what I have have said and will not comment any further.
 
Cooper's rules are not being changed. There is an attempt being made to clarify, or more correctly define these rules, as they apply to real defensive combat. "Safety" rules are usually set forth to convey an idea to the lowest common denominator; i.e. the dumbest individual who will be involved in the topic the rules address.

When dealing with goals such as gun safety the rules should be the rules. It is true that under certain conditions these rules will need to be broken. But if we change the rules in order to match these rather rare conditions then safety standards will diminish and people training for self defense will end up getting injured. As you can imagine continuing this concept would lead to a downward spiral until there are no safety rules left at all. Changing the safety rules is unnecessary. After all, what kind of idiot would sacrifice his life in order to not break a rule?
Click to expand...

This is a somewhat different stance than your original post. So, which is it - should rules be rules or should rules be broken? If it's okay to break them why have the rule in the first place? Moreover, if it is okay to break a rule in a certain situation, then the original rule is broken and needs to be fixed.

Cooper's rules are great for safe gun handling for routine shooting applications in a controlled setting. However, they fail miserably for defensive / offensive combat. They would serve adequately as "guidelines" if they were presented as such by competent instructors. Unfortunately, guidelines call for individuals to actually think for themselves. Individuals who can't think past their nose has a problem employing that concept.

Even individuals / instructors with similar training and experience often disagree on tactics and techniques.

Rule I: All guns are loaded all the time. (I guess Cooper never dry fired, heh?)

Rule III: “Keep your finger off the trigger, and indexed on the frame, until you’ve made a conscious decision to shoot.” (I think this rule should be further explained to include that the muzzle in indexed towards your intended threat.)

Let's look at Rule IV: Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Was this last part added or dropped from Cooper's original statement? This a great rule for the target shooter at the range and the hunter.

Most of the people giving "advice" are folks with no real experience (past a basic course and info from a gun-rag or the errornet) and no clue as to the true dynamics of defensive combat or the human physiology involved.

Rule V: God gave us two eyes and two ears - that's four times the learning capacity if we keep our pie-holes shut. (Trust me, I know a lot about this rule![wink] Experience is an unforgiving teacher.)
 
The four Rules

At the risk of offending someone, I suggest that the four rules could be simplified down to one rule, as follows:

Engage you brain before picking up a firearm and keep your brain engaged the whole time that you are holding a firearm.
 

Similar threads

"occluding" the optic; pistol version
Replies
8
Views
603
SJan
SJan
Uncle Mas on manual safeties
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Grendizer138
Grendizer138
Spare magazine, rounds forward or backward?
Replies
11
Views
733
cpttuna
C
Today at the range; thanks to Steve Anderson
Replies
4
Views
863
allen-1
allen-1
The Double-Tap by Clint Smith
Replies
1
Views
475
enbloc
enbloc
Back
Top Bottom