Three Rules of Safe Firearms Handling

Firearm Training
1

Guys, let’s discuss this :backhand_index_pointing_down:t4: My first impression was the trial turned into tomato/to-mah-to but it’s more than that.

John Correia shares on Facebook

Here’s another reason I have moved away from teaching Jeff Cooper’s four rules of safe firearms handling, even though I respect Col. Cooper immensely:

Recently heard a prosecutor ask a defendant on the witness stand who said he had been trained in the military in firearms if he followed the rules of safety. He said he did.

So then the prosecutor asked if that included the rule “Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy.”

“That’s correct.”

“And you pointed your firearm at the decedent?”

“Yes.”

“So you intended to destroy him?”

“Well, no. I just wanted him to stop.”

“But you said you follow the rule that you never point at gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy. That’s how you were trained, right? So did you intend to destroy the decedent, or do you not follow the rules of firearms safety?”

This is why I strongly prefer “Always keep firearms pointed in the direction of least consequence,” and why we teach that articulation at ASP. Because it’s much better in a legal sense and a practical sense too. Because when someone is an immediate threat of death or great bodily injury, the safest direction to point the firearm, the direction of least consequence, is at the deadly threat.

  1. Always keep firearms pointed in the direction of least consequence.
  2. Always keep trigger finger high and in register until you decide to fire.
  3. Always keep firearms unloaded until in use.

Three simple, positive commands that are easily defensible in court.

ETA: Some people are saying the error here is testifying in your case. IN A SELF DEFENSE CASE IT IS ALMOST 100% CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO TESTIFY. The defense must establish that you felt the subjective fear of death or great bodily harm. Nobody can do that but you in almost any scenario other than you were on the phone with 911 when it happened or something like that, which is highly rare. You WILL have to testify in your trial if your claim is that you were justified to use deadly force to stop a deadly threat. This is reality. I have taken enough cases as an expert witness to say this is the way of things, so being upset about it is a non-starter.

6 Likes
2

So if I say I wanted to destroy an attacker that I reasonably (Utahs standard) thought was going to kill or injure me or someone else, is that different than “All I wanted to do was stop the threat.”?

8 Likes
3

I don’t doubt John’s an expert in so many aspects. However, it seems like he picked a bad case (murder written all over it) to prove his point.

Also, in some ways, he’s guilty of “appeal to authority.”

What you say, Mike, has no value.

3 Likes
4

I hope you mean “No Value” in the context of this thread, or are you calling me Stupid?

6 Likes
5

To emphasize the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”

Like the Minnesota marine who testified against the evil AR-15

4 Likes
6

Attorneys, such as Politicians do what they do best, word play in their theater.

I believe it’s a mindset, follow the 4 rules and you are a responsible armed citizen. Also understand, the only thing that comes out of the barrel is death, nothing more and nothing less.

7 Likes
7

If the shooter in question had a good lawyer he could have played word game also and explained rule 1 . The defendant could have answer “So you intended to destroy him?” if the threat continued I was going to destroy the threat.

7 Likes
8

That is basically what @Mike164 said, which one would think any good lawyer would argue.

3 Likes
9

I’m glad that the rules migrated from “never" to “always".

Now these are more accurate, understandable and easier to apply.

However everything can be interpreted differently… depending on which side of the barrel you are representing.

4 Likes
10

I know you’re actively trying to stab me, please hold off for a moment while I load my gun that I will point at the ground if you stop.

Please and thank you

Seems like a great way to wind up dead in a self defense situation…. Just saying

6 Likes
11

So instead of destroy, we should just say neutralize. That ends the issue Unless the lawyer asks, you mean like change their memory like in Men in Black? :rofl:

7 Likes
12

As explained in my cc class and in my NRA pistol class, carrying a firearm for self-defense is “in use.” Also, the safety rule about pointing the firearm is only when not involved in an active self-defense situation, only an idiot or a lawyer would attempt to argue otherwise.

6 Likes
13

That’s the reason, why instead of :

Always keep firearms unloaded until in use

we should use :

Always treat firearms as they are loaded

This version is undependable of either you are carrying or not.

6 Likes
14

Maybe that’s the new term so that someone doesn’t get offended. Wouldn’t doubt it if social media platforms start muting the word destroy like they have others.

6 Likes
15

The soft world we live in where I read, at first got me confused,

M-rder

K-ll

…

4 Likes
16

Whether we destroy a threat or stop a threat it is the threat we are stopping or destroying. It doesn’t matter if the threat is a human or a camel. One has to be willing to to destroy it to stop it. So we shouldn’t point a gun at anything we are not will to destroy is the proper thing to say. When the lawyer said, “So you intended to destroy him?” The answer should have been, “no, I intended to destroy the threat.”

6 Likes
17

Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction UNTIL you are ready to fire. :thinking:

6 Likes
18

Potatoes tomatoes….

5 Likes
19

This :backhand_index_pointing_up:t4:

7 Likes
20

Turns out there was a similar discussion more than six years ago.

Going back to the case that became central to the post, I wish we have more information. Methinks the defendant didn’t have a bad lawyer, it was just a bad case and easy to convict. It had nothing to do with basic gun safety rules or semantics.

4 Likes