Replies

I've been following your antics through several threads now. AB has asked multiple times for proof for your statements and all you come back with is stupid "yo-mamma" like quips. They're not as witty as you seem to believe, and without proof you're just chewing up bandwidth that could be better spent as white space on a blank page. You put forward a factual proposition that (1) the NRA used Cooper's rules in the past, (2) ND's did not decrease after implementation of those rules (a meaningless statement without knowing what rules existed beforehand), (3) NDs did decrease after implementation of the new NRA rules, and (4) by implication the decrease was due to the implementation of the new NRA rules rather than some outside cause. You have also put forward the legal proposition that promotion of the Cooper rules exposes one to liability because those rules are unsafe. Taking the last one first, leave the lawyering to lawyers because you clearly have no clue. In any negligence action the standard of care will be reasonableness based upon accepted standards of care within the particular trade or industry. Given that the Cooper rules are widely accepted as safe and valid expressions of the general concept of "don't shoot yourself or anyone else without intending to do so", I am confident that no credible expert would be willing to go on record at trial stating that the Cooper rules are not a reasonable standard of care. As for your general factual misrepresentations, your conclusion that NRA dropped the Cooper rules because they were measurably unsafe is brand new to me. The story I've heard is that the NRA developed its own rules as a matter of internal politics to distance itself from Cooper's gunsight operation. I have never seen anything suggesting that the NRA's formulation of the exact same concepts are any more or less safe than the Cooper rules. Well, except for gun counter hangers who have too much time on their hands but that's another matter. Is that where you got your ideas? 'Cause you can hear pretty much everything at a gun counter. Last, you've made empirically verifiable statements regarding comparable ND rates under persons trained under two sets of rules. If you're going to do that you need to have real data to back it up. Anecdotes or even your own internal subjective suppositions just won't cut it. Without that, your annoying font is just a meaningless collection of unfounded personal beliefs, and I applaud AB for calling you on it. Repeatedly.

I make an assertion with experience as a
certified NRA trainer of trainers,
and a blowhard makes an assertion,
who you gona believe ?

I make an assertion with experience as a
certified NRA trainer of trainers,
and a blowhard makes an assertion,
who you gona believe ?

I have a niece who has a Masters in English and I wouldn't trust her to write a bank robbery note.

No matter who or what you are, "just because I say so" doesn't cut it.

If you are stating a "fact" and have no proof then it isn't a fact it is an opinion.

I make an assertion with experience as a certified NRA trainer of trainers, and a blowhard makes an assertion, who you gona believe ?

I don't even have any proof of that. I've seen lots of overeducated people think that a piece of paper with a certification on it gives them license to pontificate about the widest array of stuff. Barak Obama, for instance, has a paper from Harvard and once lectured on Con Law, and he believes that now gives him the right to rewrite both the constitution and the definition of marriage.

Since: (1) you're dead wrong about the law,

(2) spouting theories about the history of the NRA rules of gun safety that contradict what I've consistently heard from NRA folks for a number of years,

(3) what you are saying makes absolutely zero sense (common or otherwise),

(4) you have consistently failed to provide any proof to any of your assertions other than your dogged claim to be a certified instructor of NRA instructors, and

(5) you write everything in a really annoying font,

I'm going to place you in the category of the slightly-trollish-gun-counter-opinion-holder who has extrapolated his theories out well past the boundaries of reason or experience.

No offense intended but the factual positions you take are simply not supportable. If the NRA had actually done a study to show that their version of the rules of gun safety produced markedly safer shooters than the well-known and widely-accepted Cooper rules, don't you think that the gun boards would be discussing the merits of that study in the same frequency as the Marshall-Sarnow stopping power data, John Lott's more guns less crime data, or the relative merits of the .45ACP v. the 9mm?

The only way such data could exist and not be discussed is if it is held in a super-secret, bomb-proof vault underneath Waples-Mill Rd and the NRA is sitting on it because they know that to reveal something that groundbreaking would save lives in the short term but ultimately cause the downfall of western civilization by showing that Jeff Cooper was wrong about something. Occam's razor -- you're asking me to believe that someone did this study (I doubt it -- putting together the control group would be a logistical nightmare, and probably only the military could get human subject approval for something like this, and doing the regressions to control for external factors would likely be impossible), and that somehow not only I, but also the entire community of internet gun board discussants, missed this study. I simply cannot imagine an alternate reality in which (a) this study exists, and (b) it is not discussed widely throughout the gun board-o-sphere.

I, and AB, both have expressed a willingness to be proved wrong if you provide any proof of your assertion. That, too, is an indicator that you are dealing with reasonable folks on the other end of this conversation. And yet, you consistently refuse to provide that proof.

Another indication that you are probably a 18-year-old kid posing as a knowledgable writer on firearms issues is that you insist on using weird html to format your posts. Your font is hard on the eyes and not very cool. Alternatively, I'm also looking at the word count comparing my posts and AB's posts to your responses. I'm fairly certain that neither of us truly believe we can sway your opinion, but at least in my case I really hate to see anti-knowledge spread recklessly throughout the internet. So far, your opinions in your font are anti-knowledge, and I'm writing both for the exercise in logic and to balance your anti-knowledge with well-thought-out responses. But the balance of payments resembles that between the US and China, and therefore I don't see any reason to deal further with your puffery.

I don’t care what your credentials are, I will always treat all guns as if they are loaded all the time.

And mine are loaded all the time except during storage, cleaning, or when being reloaded.

There is nothing wrong with Rule #1.

ADs happen when people violate Rule #1.