There are a lot of things gun owners should do. Buy the right gun. Practice all aspects of marksmanship. Never talk about Fight Club. But there are some things a gun owner should never do. Such as . . .
1. Never Violate The Four Rules of Gun Safety
There are lots of way to phrase The Four Rules of Gun Safety. My take:
1.Treat all firearms as if they’re loaded
2. Keep all guns pointed in a safe direction
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target
4. Be sure of your target and what’s around it
Yes there are exceptions, such as handling a gun in a second floor apartment in a crowded city, where there’s only the safest direction for pointing your firearm.
But The Four Rules are carved in stone. Respect them and you’ll enjoy a lifetime of shooting pleasure. Had to be said.
2. Don’t talk to the police after a defensive gun use
If you have a defensive gun use, survive. Afterwards, call the cops.
Provide the 911 operator with the important information that helps them locate and secure the scene — and ONLY that information. Tell them your name, location, a brief description of yourself and the fact that there’s been a shooting or attack. Then put the phone down or hang up.
When the police arrive, provide them with the following information to help them secure the scene:
1. A description of any attacker(s) not immobilized
2. What direction and how the attacker(s) left the scene
3. The location of any evidence (especially weapons)
4. The identity of any witnesses (point ’em out)
You have no legal obligation to tell the police ANYTHING, including the info above. And you are well advised NOT to provide any information OTHER than the information above, such as “he came at me here, I was over there.”
After a defensive gun use, after you provide the above info (or not), politely assert your right to silence. “I’ll be glad to answer all your questions after I’ve spoken to my lawyer. I’d like to speak with my lawyer now please.”
And then STFU. That includes remaining silent if medical staff asks you non-health-related questions.
3. Never vote for a Democrat
The Democratic Party is committed to gun control (a.k.a., civilian disarmament). It’s in the 2016 Party platform:
To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.
If you’re new to this, the translation is simple enough. Democrats want to make it as difficult as possible for Americans to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. To the point where they can’t.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote to degrade and destroy your gun rights. While you may consider other issues more important than firearms freedom, they aren’t. The Second Amendment protects you and all your rights. Without its protections, both you and your country are in mortal peril.
Click here to read the Republican Party Platform. Suffice it to say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Well, your ally. And because we’re talking politics, that’s as good as it gets.
Good list.
I came here just to make sure #3 was on it or to put it here myself.
Getting a loud in this echo chamber.
Enough with the dems are the antichrist. Keep pointing at someone else and pretty soon everyone is staring at you.
And you can talk to cops. The bad intel on STFU when a cop is around is because most people who need that advice really did do something wrong. Then yes, by all means shut up. But playing the lawyer card instantly is a good way to turn from victim to perp. It’s way to practiced, kind of like you meant to do what you did. Like ahead of time.
Please tell me more about all the good things the Demokkkratic party has done for gun owners.
There are vocal anti 2A dems just like there are pro abortion republicans. The vocal ones make the news. But pretending like Hillary is ready to drive a tank through your front door to take you guns is nothing short of tinfoil hat. Especially now. Let the dems squeak about guns. With R’s in almost everywhere, it is certainly not the dems who will change the laws for the worse. The legislation might have D on the top but anything that gets through is because of R’s not toeing the line.
So continuously bashing Dems is like the playground bully who just won’t quit. After a while, even the other bullies think he’s nuts and move away from him.
If you have message, then spill it. But wildly pointing your finger in every D direction with foam and spit flying from your mouth make even those who agree with you shy away. And I’m one of them. A life long gun owner, collector, shooter, hunter, and firearm builder. But your kind is threatening my kind.
What you miss is that I don’t give a shit. If the left thinks it’s ok to punch “Nazis”, I don’t feel a particular obligation to tolerate America’s oldest terrorist organization.
Well, seeing at the destruction of private gun ownership is LITERALLY in their charter (there is no other way to explain their glee for the repeal of the PLCAA), how is it unreasonable to assume they are hostile to gun rights? And while there are a tiny handful of pro-gun Democrats, they are in the VAST minority, and are usually more like DINOs. Same way there are a tiny minority of anti-gun Republicans, like that worthless piece of shit Chris Christy. We’ve got our RINOs too.
Not to mention that modern liberalism (yes, I am aware that there is a significant difference between that and classical liberalism, but it’s not relevant to the current political climate) is largely about subservience to the state. Your kind is all about centralizing and expanding government. That inherently authoritarian viewpoint is totally incompatible with widespread, private ownership of firearms. We see you for what you are. Deal with it.
The two Dems I can think of, who “claimed” to support gun rights are Joe Manchin, and Bernie Sanders. Joe was firing his hunting rifle in his campaign ad video (like some Kevin Spacey bit out of House of Cards), then couldn’t wait to sign onto “common sense gun control.”
Do I even have to discuss Bernie? Is there ANY part of the US Consitution that he would defend??
Democrat words mean nothing. Pay attention only to their actions.
There are plenty of 2nd Amendment supporting Democrats from rural districts.
In my state (Colorado), all of the onerous gun control legislation in recent years was introduced by democrats and rammed through both houses of the legislature when they held a slim majority. They were then signed by a democrat in the governor’s chair.
I rest my case.
Actually, #2 is good advice. After cops are involved in shootings they are obligated to give the same information suggested here and then they STFU. Youre playing by the same rules as the cops (re: shootings). #2 isn’t telling you to stone wall the investigation. It’s telling you to relate necessary public safety information to the people who need it, and then seek legal counsel. Thats probably the best advice you can get.
The unfortunate reality in today’s politics is each party is becoming more and more homogenized. Parties these days judge individual members based on the party platform. A litmus test if you will. Pro 2A Dems are becoming more and more rare. Moderate members in either party are slowly but surely being ousted. Check out every state that’s been blue for the last 20 years and see what their gun laws look like. Worse even because one extra liberal justice on the Supreme Court and Chicago’s full handgun ban would have been upheld. And then states like Cali would have legal precedent to ban all handguns. Let’s not pretend that Anti 2A Dems are some rare thing that no one has to worry about.
As for not talking to cops, this article SAYS you should point out evidence and witnesses to cops on the initial scene and merely that you should wait to give your formal statement until after you’ve spoken to a lawyer. Sounds like sound advice to me.
The problem isn’t that the parties have an ideology that their members adhere to. The letter next to a politicians name should mean something. If it did, low information voters would only need to read the parties’ platforms to determine who to vote for. It would be easy to be a responsible voter.
The problem is that we only have two parties.
We don’t need to paint the Dems as the anti-Christ. All we need to do is what Mr. Farago did above – quote their very own written, public party platform. I think it speaks for itself.
All you need to know is that Hillary said the Supremes got it wrong in the Heller decision.
Any vote for a Democratic congressman is a vote for Pelosi to be speaker. Any vote for a Democratic senator is a vote for Schumer to be majority leader.
Tell me again how Chuckie and Nancy feel about gun rights?
Pop quiz, how many decades did it take to get DC’s gun ban reversed?
The Democrats are certainly not the Antichrist. But they ARE utterly hostile to the right to keep and bear arms.
If you want to risk losing your inherent human right to choose the best means of defending yourself, your family, and your community, then by all means vote for Democrats.
Considering the many other authoritarian policies the Democratic party pushes in addition to their anti-gun obsession, I think it’s fair to say that their claim to respect human rights is hollow. As a party, they don’t respect individual rights at all.
And the principled maverick who got your vote this time around, if she wants to stay in the game, will march to the party’s drum sooner or later. Take that into account.
As a Dem who’s in favor of the 2A, we’re not all the same, just as I believe that you’re not all the same. Screw bashing us, now’s an opportune time to get them to reconsider their dumb gun platform. It’s unnecessarily partisan.
If it were up to me, as a Dem, I’d say, “if it’s not the guns, GOP, let’s get treatment for folks with issues regardless of income. Also, Dems, can we not make silly unenforceable laws!?”
I’m definitely weird, but there are a lot of weird ones in WA. De-politicise gun stuff, and we’d all have less to worry about when the pendulum swings.
Fuck the pendulum. The entire DNC leadership belongs on death row for treason. Sorry bro, but you can’t call for the government to hold a gun to my head to pay for your shit and then claim to support freedom. You’re in a dehumanizing anti-liberty cult. Get out.
“…And you can talk to cops…”
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
The article was right. GlockRock cannot be more wrong. A good prosecutor can twist your words to mean whatever they want a jury to believe. If they have a political axe to grind, you are toast. You point out evidence, witnesses, describe assailants, and politely request to speak with an attorney before you tell the whole story. If you doubt me, talk to an attorney who specializes in this kind of law. Just don’t be that guy who spends the rest of his life in prison because he thought he was smarter then a prosecutor.
uh…. the Illinois Shall Issue CCW was sponsored by a D…. for many years before the law suit forced it.
There are Ds that are gun owners/advocates, though they get fewer and fewer every year. It wasnt always like this.
The “D” of whom you speak is a southern Illinois Democrat, which means he represents a former coal mining area where the voters have been told how to vote by their unions for decades.
He’s as much a Democrat as Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. But as mentioned above, he helps solidify the Democratic majority in our legislature that has destroyed this state and won’t stop until there are no more union members left to donate to their campaigns.
You mean the “shall issue” bill they were forced to pass by court order? Yeah… color me shocked. Sponsoring a bill you know has zero chance of passage is a long way from being pro-gun. The Illinois legislature is a den of degenerate criminals who don’t care about the rights of their constituents. Just look at the back stab we got this year over suppressors.
I think gun owners should vote democrat. They should vote in democrat primaries in districts that are “safe ” democrat. They can still vote republican in the general.
STFU is good policy. Even police unions tell their members the same. Do NOT talk to anyone until your lawyer shows up.
The USCCA has an awesome “critical response” card that it gives to members that has a nicely written lawyer request written on it in terms cops can relate to.
Dude, the USCCA sells your back your constitutional rights. Anyone can ask for a lawyer, and has the right to remain silent. It didn’t take the USCCA to get that on the books.
What the USCCA has is a list of lawyers for you. But you too can make a couple calls and find your own lawyer and make your own card. But pulling out a card, well, that’s still a little “too prepared” for a lot of juries.
Yeah… I’d love to see that testimony try to get admitted into evidence. Requesting a lawyer is not an admission of guilt and admitting said request into evidence is reversible error.
The USCCA takes care of everything for you; the correct lawyer for area you are in, bail, trial expenses & civil protection if necessary. Ya, you can hire a lawyer out of your own pocket or have this enormous cost covered for you. Don’t forget that the USCCA covers you for the use of ‘any weapon of opportunity’, including your fists, feet, etc. If a person is ever unfortunate enough to be in self defense situation, why wouldn’t you want everything taken care of for you?
The uscca will drop you like hot brass the moment your story sounds fishy.. the double standard is they clam to represent the little guy as long as they think you are innocent. So if the going gets rough you will have a defense team wondering if you are worth the trouble. All their ads show best case scenarios. Questionable use of force, whhics is all of them, is a grey area. Luckily few ever meet to test the so-called uscca coverage.
@Charlie Mike Mike – Uh, that’s a huge [Citation. Fucking. Needed.].
That’s an interesting conclusion and one backed up by extensive research and post verdict interviews with jurors.
Care to share the link where that evidence came from…..or do I just download it from the same rear end you pulled it out of?
Sheesh. This list should have another “Never do”: Never listen to anonymous people online making solid assertions about things they couldn’t possibly know.
I’d love to see some case law where the fact that the defendant exercised his right to counsel is admitted into evidence as “being uncooperative”. Having an officer testify to that effect in open court is a great way to get that officer’s entire testimony stricken or even a mistrial declared due to the prejudicial nature of that testimony.
The right thing to say is I would like a lawyer present during any questioning. Do NOT tell them that you want to remain silent. Refusing to talk can be construed as being uncooperative with police and they can and will testify to that effect.
Actually, no they can’t. If the lack of “cooperation” is invoking your right to counsel admitting any testimony to the effect you describe is reversible error.
Good grief. Yet another non-lawyer speculating without even the foggiest idea of what the rules of evidence are or how trials are conducted.
Actions matter more than words on gun control: there have been gun control measures put forth by Republicans too over the decades. And, I’m still waiting for repeal of the NFA and national carry reciprocity from Trump and the GOP Congress. Better hope you’re not on the No-Fly List for your pro-gun views too or your gun rights may get taken away. (http://thehill.com/regulation/284792-house-republicans-pushing-gun-control-bill)
While unfortunate, the version of that bill pushed by the Republicans had a strong due process provision. The Dems (in this case, thank God for petty partisanship) voted against it because it wasn’t the version THEY wanted (which was identical, just without any kind of due process).
“…there are exceptions, such as handling a gun in a second floor apartment in a crowded city…”
Thank G-d someone stated that out loud (sort-of).
This is possible my biggest kvetch re:the Four Rules. Can you ever remove or replace your carry gun in a safe/drawer/cake without somehow covering someone? How about in a non-crowded city? Do you where everyone is in your building at all times? Even in a house, an ND could go through the wall and hit someone a room or 2 (or house) away, depending on the round.
How about the laser “rounds” that you can use in a semi-auto to “shoot” reactive targets? If a real round somehow got in, you’d ruin your target.
How about dry firing? If a real round got in there, you’d shoot something in your house. Who want s chunks of concrete flying about. Checking out a new gun in a shop or at a show? I’ve never been in a show that had a “safe” target. I need to use some awareness to find a safe direction..
Adding to the above, bye bye to Force on Force training, ’cause you’re pointing [thoroughly checked] real guns at people and pressing the trigger. (It does get your adrenaline pumping though.)
When I do non-NRA teaching, my first rule is “finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot”. Except in very rare instances with a defective or broken gun, guns don’t “go off” by themselves.
My personal rule (that is also in my non-NRA courses) is: “the gun is always loaded, until you check it. Again.” If I checked a gun and handed it to you, when you gave it back, I’d check it again. I store most of my guns unloaded and I’m currently) the only person with access. Still, when I remove one, I check it. It’s an easy habit to start.
Right wingers/libertarians/conservatives frequently comment on the infantilizing of America’s youth, treating them like children, reinforcing the idea that they can’t possibly make a decision and, therefore, can’t be responsible for their behavior. So does it make sense that we simply point to the Four Rules as absolute so that there is supposedly no assessment needed?
I love Clint Smith’s videos and now I get to see him on YouTube. He is a big supporter of the Four Rules (no surprise there, give his background). I recently watched him review four historic 1911s that were lying on a table, pointing towards the camera. He was handling each one to show the viewers without once clearing or checking them. Boy, I hope that no one was within bullet range. (Yes, I know that he lives waaay out there.)
Accidents happen, that’s why we call them accidents. It makes sense to direct energy and effort to minimize them. I believe that it’s impossible to eliminate them.
I’ll climb down from my soapbox before I hurt myself. 8>)
I look at the 4 rules this way: they are sufficient, but not necessary for safe firearms handling (if you’re not familiar with the terms in the context of formal logic and such, google it). Basically, it is possible to safely handle a firearm without using all the rules (ie they’re not “necessary” for safe handling), but if one DOES follow ALL the rules, it is pretty much impossible to have a dangerous accident (they are “sufficient” for safe handling). Depending on exactly how you interpret them, you’d need to break at least 2 or more rules to really put anyone in danger. So for me, of course there are moments where i violate one of the rules. But I know that if I do follow all four of them I’m safe, and if i minimize the exceptions where i might need to violate one or 2 of them, I can dramatically minimize my chances of any dangerous mishap.
Screw the Republican Party.
Vote Libertarian if you care about your gun rights AND actually want to reduce the size and scope of government.
Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that will only ever work on paper. As soon as you add people, it all falls apart like communism.
So, everything falls apart under free-markets and limited government? What an interesting perspective you have.
Absolutely. Most ideas, libertarianism included, sound great until you add people. People lie, cheat, steal, and screw each other over until your little utopia turns into a dystopia.
I mostly agree. If it were strictly a matter of rights coupled with responsibilities, then libertarianism would be great, but it never is.
Every libertarian wants their “rights”, by which they mean the right to do whatever they want, no matter how much they screw over their neighbors, but never the responsibilities for the consequences of their actions. They won’t even accept responsibility for themselves. Libertarians whine and cry when “society” doesn’t come rescue them from their bad decisions.
That said, the country would be better off veering toward a more libertarian stance and away from the socialism of the past century. However, the “pure” libertarianism espoused by the LP, for example, is fantasy masquerading as public policy. It’s as unworkable as the 2A absolutists, by the way.
You might want to re-consider, PMKN. Here’s what 2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson told USA Today:
Even so, [Gary] Johnson also says he has a “nuanced” view of the Libertarian Party platform plank, which opposes “all laws at any level of government” restricting guns. “We should be open to a discussion on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” he says. “I don’t know how that manifests itself, but I’m looking to get elected president of the United States. I just want to let people know I have an open mind about how we might, how government might, interject itself in a lot of the problems we have.”
Not sure what a “nuanced” view of opposing gun restrictions is, but it sounds to me like skyscraper-sized wiggle room. Moreover, keeping an open mind about how govt might interject itself into our problems doesn’t sound too libertarian. Govt. interjecting itself into our problems often results in bigger problems & bigger chunks out of our paychecks.
Gary Johnson is a libertarian like Hillary Clinton respects the second amendment, e.g.: on paper only.
Hence why I voted for the Constitution Party and Darrel Castle.
Most libertarians are in the Republican party because they are smart enough to know that the two-party system isn’t going away any time soon.
Actually the libertarian party now supports gun control, and many other liberal platforms socially. They’ve essentially become liberals but economically prefer a free market, however the minute they are criticized on it, they’ll fold like wet towels. The libertarian party is a joke, and if your a supporter your being taken for a ride.
Was in Walmart yesterday looking for .22. Spotted a magnetic barrel rest that goes on the TOP of your boot for sale……who makes this stuff?????
Doesn’t matter who makes it. What matters is who buys it. If not for demand, the product would not exist.
I don’t think I’ve seen the product you describe. I have seen barrel rest pads that go on the ground and have a small magnet so you can pick them up with your muzzle. I have also seen pads that tie into your shoe laces. They have no use for a magnet.
You see those used often on a trap range with break-action shotguns. Many people with break-action shotguns will rest their muzzle (with the action broken) on their toe as the other shooters are shooting.
1. Keep all guns pointed in a safe direction
2. Treat all firearms as if they’re loaded
I have never, ever seen the four rules listed in that order. The notion of treating every gun like a loaded gun has always been #1. And it should be. You need to define what a gun is, before you tell people how to handle one.
I agree 100 percent. Most gun bills are passed or rejected along party lines, and you know exactly which side the dems are on.
I was expecting to see more about land wars in Asia, or going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Inconceivable!
Not every DEM is the devil. Sheriff David Clarke isnt. And even in sucky Ill inois there are pro-gun dems downstate. Unfortunately most are evil. Especially anywhere near Chiraq.
I’m evil, but in a good way.
Perhaps. Neither is every race to the swift, nor every battle to the strong, but that’s the way the smart money bets.
Surprised that no one has come out with armored shoes to protect you feet from accidents.
“Surprised that no one has come out with armored shoes to protect you feet from accidents.”
Armored shoes are very much a thing, actually.
They are called metatarsal guards, and they work in addition with steel toe footwear.
There is an OSHA specification for them.
This is one example:
http://www.bootbarn.com/Georgia-Men's-Giant-Metatarsal-Guard-Steel-Toe-Work-Boots/1007479,default,pd.html
Steel toed boots? Like the ones many companies require? In case of accidents?
After a defensive gun use episode, I’d just as soon leave the scene before the police arrive provided no one witnessed the event. But then again, I reside in Commiefornia where you cannot get a concealed carry permit and the powers that be would rather you be a victim than defend yourself with a firearm no matter what the circumstances are.
Leaving the scene of a shooting? Do you really think that’s going to end well for you?
I said, provided there were no witnesses.
Beware the LCAMs! That was a new one to me.
FTA “Provide the 911 operator with the important information that helps them locate and secure the scene — and ONLY that information. Tell them your name, location and the fact that there’s been a shooting or attack. Then put the phone down or hang up.”
Agree w/most. Additional for me…Let the 911 operator know that the threat is over and no one is armed. I do agree that you should not ‘engage’ the operator…remember it’s all recorded.
But realize the police are going to be arriving not knowing who is or was armed. They’re going to be skittish. The scene needs to be clearly non threatening or everyone’s going to be face down on the floor or worse the sidewalk.
Yes, the absolute minimum information given to the police is absolutely vital. Any, and I mean any, lawyer will agree 100%. Remember, the Miranda warning states that if you talk then, “… anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST YOU.” It doesn’t say “can be used to help you.” Keep that foremost in mind. Doesn’t matter how innocent you think you are or how open and shut you think it all is. I.e., ” I need to see a doctor and talk to a lawyer officer. My life was in danger from that man.” That’s it. Zip. Nada. Nothing else.
Unless you have been injured, are experiencing a heart attack, or some such thing, do not ask for a doctor. A widely held belief among criminals is that asking for a doctor will get you taken to the ER where the doctors will keep the police away from you. Therefore, the police will believe you are a criminal if you ask for a doctor and don’t clearly need one (read that as are bleeding badly).
I’m not sure it really matters in a court of law what the police think regarding medical treatment. After all, I’m not a medical doctor either. Maybe I do need one because I’m in shock and may be about to have a heart attack. There is no way to tell without a blood test or ekg. I’d rather get checked out by the medics on this. Hell, given the situation, I may have rolled around with the attacker on the ground, taken blows and cracked a rib. How would I know without being checked? Adrenaline does wonders for pain management.I’m just trying to cover all my bases here, legal and medical.
First, read my first sentence again. Don’t ask for a doctor unless you need a doctor. Second, I am sure it matters what the police think as to whether or not you go to trial.
Never vote for democrat/socialist/liberal/communist. I know that is redundant, but it has to be said. First things my parents taught me from birth, never vote democrat and never buy all-state ins. That was in 1944. The cop’s job is to secure the scene, and write a report. From the time they get there until you are clear, you are a suspect and a prisoner right then and there. They pass you up the line to detectives if you do not answer their questions, (that’s where you are going next anyway) the detectives will baby talk you. If that does not work, then maybe you will get a public defender. If you have enough money, you get the lawyer first. One piece of advise when dealing with cops, do not be an ass-hole, they have seen enough of those. Keep it simple and polite. Cops can be ass-holes do not fall into that trap either. As an American Citizen you will be required to show ID, do it. If you are not an American Citizen ID is not really necessary, ‘no habla ingles’ will suffice.
I can’t agree with saying NEVER vote for a Democrat.
Only Sith deal in absolutes, after all.
The Force is strong with this one.
Do primaries count for #3? I know someone that’s registered as a Democrat so they waste their money sending him junk mail and he can pick candidates with no hope in the general election.
Never vote for anybody who says “Never vote for so-and-so”.
I have a great idea: How about more gun reviews, and less bullshit?
Alternative list:
(1) Don’t leave any gun or ammo lying around unsecured while you are out of the house.
(2) Don’t leave any gun or ammo unsecured and unattended while there are kids in the house.
(3) Don’t let somebody “borrow” a gun or ammo off of your premises and out of your supervision.
Item 1, Normally Rule 4 is:”Be sure of your target and what’s BEYOND it”
Over penetration happens.