Amish Girl Killed by ‘Accidental’ Firearms Discharge
Rachel Yoder, age 15, was driving her buggy home from a Christmas party last Thursday night when she was killed. According to Holmes County Sheriff Timothy Zimmerly, an Amish hunter “was preparing to clean his muzzle-loaded rifle after deer hunting and fired it into the air.”
This provides a teachable moment, in hopes of saving one life tomorrow. Or two, considering the shooter’s life will never be the same.
Media does a public disservice when they procreate the myth that guns go off by “accident.” A number of simple and easy safe handling rules must be intentionally violated for the above story to happen.
First: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. Pointing any gun in the air is always unsafe. Bullets can easily travel over one mile, maintaining enough energy to be fatal.
Second: Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. That includes anything that could depress the trigger: screw drivers, cleaning rods, etc.
Third: Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. A corollary is: Every gun is loaded until verified unloaded. When cleaning a gun, double-check before proceeding.
Know your firearm, how it operates, and how to field strip and clean it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more experienced you are, the greater the temptation to consider yourself smart and experienced enough to create your own rules. Pride goeth before the fall. (Of course, there’s still the ignorant who think they know what they’re doing. Observing how they handle a gun gives them away.)
We still need to pull our pants down before going potty, no matter how many thousands of times we did this before. Simple attention to never-changing basics keeps one from making a mess of things.
Howard – I wonder how many gun rules this fellow ignored? I get a magazine from a concealed carry organization and that has had a spate of articles on rules for handling guns safely, and you have cited some of the rules. What puzzles me is why he shot the gun in the air to unload it? That is quite unsafe besides being a waste of ammunition. It would seem that the fairest thing would be to allow the bereaved family to sue him for any monetary damages as well the grief he has caused them.
Do you know it was an intentional shot?
No, I don’t know if it was intentional. I sort of inferred that from what you wrote, but then it might not have been (which will probably be his defense). The bottom lilne is that he broke a whole bunch rules on the safe gun handling and I think he should in some way be penalized for that. BTW I am a gun owner and I don’t want accidents like this to lead to a clamor for morre restrictions on guns.
This was an unintentional death but it was a negligent discharge. He did not accidently discharge the rifle, according to reports, he fired into the air, intentionally. He was negligent in that he did not fire the weapon so that the bullet came to rest safely.
I infer he fired the rifle elevated but not straight up. As it was, he simply and probably ignorantly, executed a long-range rifle shot. Had he fired high in the air, air resistance would have rendered the bullet non-lethal, had he fired a level shot, gravity, terrain and curvature of the earth would have render the bullet non-lethal, but he chose to execute basic musketry for long range shots and unintentionally killed a passerby.
It is mostly taught with respect to machine guns these days but if you are going to use high caliber muzzle loaders, it would be wise to learn about the beaten zone and plunging fire as it was used in musketry.
People are making the mistaken assumption that firing into the “air” as reported means he pointed the gun perfectly perpendicular before shooting.
Mr. Nemerov:
Whether he fired straight up into the air, or fired at an angle (e.g., level, howitzer, or mortar angle), the results would in all likelihood have been the same on whoever got hit by the bullet.
In Hatcher’s Notebook, they ran experiments which included firing machine guns straight up into the air in order to do experiments on what happens when they come back down. The 150 grain M2 ball ammo coming back down base first did so with a velocity of some 320 FPS and some 35 Ft. Lbs. of energy (I am doing this from memory, so please bear with me.). This was deemed insufficient to cause battlefield casualties. Remember that we are talking about troops wearing steel pots, tons of web gear, and other equipment. A civilian hit on the top of the skull with this much energy would in all likelihood sustain a fatal wound. Consider that high powered air rifles deliver less kinetic energy and can kill or seriously injure someone.
Using 320 FPS as terminal velocity for the sake of argument (Yes, I know different bullet diameters and weights will have different terminal velocities.) a 180 grain .30 bullet will deliver some 40 Ft. Lbs., and a 220 grain bullet will come down with some 50 Ft. Lbs. (my calculations) of authority. One New Year’s Eve, I had a 230 grain hardball .45 slug just miss the overpass I was hiding under right at midnight, and hit the sidewalk next to me. When I found the slug, the nose had flattened sufficiently to tell me that it would have delivered a fatal wound on anyone it hit in the skull.
Even a load of birdshot fired straight up could blind someone if he were looking up at the wrong time. Buckshot, shotgun slugs, rifle, and pistol bullets coming back down can kill or seriously injure someone. Using the velocity given above, one of my 550 grain .45-70 rifle bullets would have 125 Ft. Lbs. of energy (Being a larger, heavier slug, the terminal velocity would be substantially higher in real life.). The figure given for a .50 BMG slug was given as some 400 Ft. Lbs. I don’t recall the bullet weight or the given terminal velocity.
I am aware of long range musketry and volley fire drills with muzzle loaders and .45.70 rifles in the Civil War and post-Civil-War era. I don’t remember the specifics, but one drill at the extreme range of the .45-70 rifles I read about, the 500 grain bullets still punched through railroad ties used to support the targets and several inches into the hillside behind the targets (This was from another source.).
I am also aware of the warnings printed on .22 rimfire boxes of a one mile danger zone. According to Journee’s formula, the maximum range for a .22 long rifle bullet is roughly 1500 yards (Pretty close; I think this came from Hatcher’s Notebook.). This assumes still air and calm conditions. Any kind of a tailwind will cause the bullet to travel substantially further than a mile.
One of the reasons “straight up, actions open” is considered the safe direction at rifle ranges is that you have concrete walkways and firing points. A negligent discharge would deliver ricochets, bullet fragments, and flying pieces of concrete.
I have my copy of Hatcher’s notebook, which is buried somewhere in storage. I am going to have to dig it up some day.
Yep. See my comment below. The experts originally wondered if she had died by falling out of the buggy and hitting her head. The doctors at the hospital determined a gunshot wound. Seems possible the bullet was fatal but didn’t create a normal wound, so it wasn’t clear to first responders. That would indicate a lower-than-normal energy coefficient in the bullet at the time it hit her head. At least that’s one possible explanation for the lack of clarity everybody’s addressing about how a muzzleloader could be fatal at that distance.
I believe the intent of the shooter here was to unload the weapon in advance of cleaning, he knew it was loaded. Some old-style muzzleloaders can only be cleared by two methods. The easiest is firing them. The other method requires using a ball puller, essentially a heavy screw placed on the ramrod which then has to be pounded into the ball to get enough of a “bite” to pull it. I do fire my reproduction Hawken rifle to clear it at the end of the hunting day but NEVER into the air, I fire into soft ground. Indeed most of my hunting is done from elevated stands so that I shoot downward, the bullet, if not stopped by a deer, will go into the ground within sight.
I have passed up shots on deer that would end up going over the horizon. The safety rule is to know what you are shooting at, and to also know what is behind it. This shooter was negligent in not determining (or caring) where the bullet ultimately would land.
I’m sorry — I’m neither a firearms nor a ballistics expert — but a muzzle-loader with a range of one mile, and that rifle ball still has enough force to kill someone?
I know that Civil War snipers may have had muzzle-loading rifles with that capability, so my skepticism my be misplaced. Still . . . . ?
A little research shows that Civil War snipers like Union sniper Truman “California Joe” Head hit targets up to 1,500 yards.
http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/54/civil-war-snipers
Reports say the shooter was between 1 and 1.5 miles away . But muzzleloader technology has improved in 150 years. Barrels can now be rifled; spinning bullets travel farther.
http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/catalog.aspx?catid=blackpowdermuzzleloaderriflebarrels
Powder technology has improved. Did he load it extra hot? Was he on a hill? What angle was the gun pointing when he shot? These factors can contribute to an unusual parabolic arc that could create an exceptional circumstance.
Also, the girl was at first believed to have fallen from the buggy and hit her head.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/20/ohio-man-cleaning-gun-killed-amish-girl-sheriff-says/
So if the bullet impact wasn’t readily apparent to crime scene experts, it may have lost enough energy to cause a hemorrhage, instead of the more common entrance wound.
So all the evidence we know about could be consistent with a muzzleloader rifle shot from an unusual distance for such technology.
By the way, modern bullets can travel up to 5 miles. Even a .22 long rifle can travel 1.5 miles.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/learning/hunter_education/homestudy/firearms/bullets.phtml
Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated.
Just one nit:
Barrels can now be rifled; spinning bullets travel farther.
Rifled barrels became standard in the first quarter of the 19th century, so the Civil War snipers would have had rifled barrels.
You’re correct. I found some references to around 1850, when rifling began replacing older smooth-bore musket technology.
Mr. Nemerov:
I am going to reply to several comments on one post. You mentioned that rifling began to replace smoothbore technology in the 1850s. I imagine these references referred to mass production technology. As far back as the Revolutionary War, our Minute Men used somewhat smaller bore rifles that could pick off Redcoat officers at well beyond the effective range of the British issue Brown Bess muskets. These were “made to a pattern” but not mass produced, and these had rifled bores.
I don’t know if “spinning the ball” would make it travel further than firing the same ball from a smoothbore. Spinning the ball would make it more accurate within its effective range, or more correctly, increase its effective range, but would not increase its maximum range. Proving this would be rather difficult since it would require firing at least a hundred shots from each configuration from a fixed mount, taking into account shot to shot differences in velocity, and the fact that the “beaten zone” of the unrifled tube at maximum range would be somewhat bigger. I am guessing that more of the balls from the rifled tube would land into a smaller beaten zone at its maximum range, and at least statistically, it would marginally increase its maximum range.
Rifled tubes can use elongated bullets that increase sectional density and, at the same muzzle velocity, would travel further.
From what I’ve read about the description of the fatal wound, it is possible that this was a howitzer/musketry type shot that delivered a glancing blow to the head sufficient to cause blunt trauma to kill, but would not LOOK like a gunshot wound. Also, unless someone was LISTENING for the report, it probably wasn’t noticed, which explained the original “fell from the wagon and hit her head on the ground” assessment of the event. Intervening terrain features (e.g., hills) or trees could have blocked the report from carrying that far. I am also aware of the fact that at typical muzzle loader velocities, the sound of the report would catch up to the bullet long before it reached its maximum range.
As for older firearms “accidentally” going off “by itself,” one of the things I was taught about old firearms is to take it to a competent gunsmith QUALIFIED in arms of this particular era. His job is not only to tell you if the arm is sufficiently sound to fire the cartridge or charge it was designed for (e.g., shotguns with Damascus barrels), but also check the firing mechanism to make sure it is sound, particularly checking the sear engagement surfaces to make sure none are worn. I have an old .22 that would fire if the butt were dropped on the ground. Because it has some “history,” I had a gunsmith recut the sear and the face on the striker making sure the angles are correct and original, polish both surfaces to remove grittiness, and case harden the critical surfaces so it wouldn’t wear out again.
Regarding hunting, one of the things I was taught when hunting upland game birds, is to make sure you see SKY behind the target before shooting. If there is more than one person in your hunting party, make sure everybody knows where everybody else is. Assign firing sectors such that one person’s muzzle doesn’t inadvertently go across another hunter. If you are shooting at a pheasant, wait until you see sky. The brush or trees could be concealing someone you can’t see. The maximum range for any size of birdshot used in upland game or waterfowl is going to be less than four hundred yards, a situation easier to control, particularly if you are hunting on private property WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER’S PERMISSION. He or she will also tell you where NOT to fire because there will be people, buildings, or livestock in that area.
A film I remember from years ago is one called “Trigger Happy Harry,” full of staged events on what NOT to do including real bonehead mistakes.
Since we are on the subject of firearm safety, one of the things we did in a hunter safety class to dispel the notion that .22 rimfire cartridges are toys, I would stage an empty brake fluid can refilled with water at the fifty foot line. I fired one shot with a .22 and hit the can. I brought the can back and showed the students the hole on one side. I then turned it around and showed them the bulged out hole big enough that the kids in the class could stick their hands into. That made quite an impression on them.
Mr. Nemerov, I really enjoy reading your material, and enjoy the opportunity to contribute to this body of knowledge. As you may have guessed, under the tenets of “political correctness,” I can say “old fart” for the same reason the black folks can say the “N” word. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Nemerov:
I am Andy94538. On my last post, it printed me as “Anonymous.”
What I wrote was as follows, and this time I am including my screen name in the post itself:
Mr. Nemerov:
I am going to reply to several comments on one post. You mentioned that rifling began to replace smoothbore technology in the 1850s. I imagine these references referred to mass production technology. As far back as the Revolutionary War, our Minute Men used somewhat smaller bore rifles that could pick off Redcoat officers at well beyond the effective range of the British issue Brown Bess muskets. These were “made to a pattern” but not mass produced, and these had rifled bores.
I don’t know if “spinning the ball” would make it travel further than firing the same ball from a smoothbore. Spinning the ball would make it more accurate within its effective range, or more correctly, increase its effective range, but would not increase its maximum range. Proving this would be rather difficult since it would require firing at least a hundred shots from each configuration from a fixed mount, taking into account shot to shot differences in velocity, and the fact that the “beaten zone” of the unrifled tube at maximum range would be somewhat bigger. I am guessing that more of the balls from the rifled tube would land into a smaller beaten zone at its maximum range, and at least statistically, it would marginally increase its maximum range.
Rifled tubes can use elongated bullets that increase sectional density and, at the same muzzle velocity, would travel further.
From what I’ve read about the description of the fatal wound, it is possible that this was a howitzer/musketry type shot that delivered a glancing blow to the head sufficient to cause blunt trauma to kill, but would not LOOK like a gunshot wound. Also, unless someone was LISTENING for the report, it probably wasn’t noticed, which explained the original “fell from the wagon and hit her head on the ground” assessment of the event. Intervening terrain features (e.g., hills) or trees could have blocked the report from carrying that far. I am also aware of the fact that at typical muzzle loader velocities, the sound of the report would catch up to the bullet long before it reached its maximum range.
As for older firearms “accidentally” going off “by itself,” one of the things I was taught about old firearms is to take it to a competent gunsmith QUALIFIED in arms of this particular era. His job is not only to tell you if the arm is sufficiently sound to fire the cartridge or charge it was designed for (e.g., shotguns with Damascus barrels), but also check the firing mechanism to make sure it is sound, particularly checking the sear engagement surfaces to make sure none are worn. I have an old .22 that would fire if the butt were dropped on the ground. Because it has some “history,” I had a gunsmith recut the sear and the face on the striker making sure the angles are correct and original, polish both surfaces to remove grittiness, and case harden the critical surfaces so it wouldn’t wear out again.
Regarding hunting, one of the things I was taught when hunting upland game birds, is to make sure you see SKY behind the target before shooting. If there is more than one person in your hunting party, make sure everybody knows where everybody else is. Assign firing sectors such that one person’s muzzle doesn’t inadvertently go across another hunter. If you are shooting at a pheasant, wait until you see sky. The brush or trees could be concealing someone you can’t see. The maximum range for any size of birdshot used in upland game or waterfowl is going to be less than four hundred yards, a situation easier to control, particularly if you are hunting on private property WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER’S PERMISSION. He or she will also tell you where NOT to fire because there will be people, buildings, or livestock in that area.
A film I remember from years ago is one called “Trigger Happy Harry,” full of staged events on what NOT to do including real bonehead mistakes.
Since we are on the subject of firearm safety, one of the things we did in a hunter safety class to dispel the notion that .22 rimfire cartridges are toys, I would stage an empty brake fluid can refilled with water at the fifty foot line. I fired one shot with a .22 and hit the can. I brought the can back and showed the students the hole on one side. I then turned it around and showed them the bulged out hole big enough that the kids in the class could stick their hands into. That made quite an impression on them.
Mr. Nemerov, I really enjoy reading your material, and enjoy the opportunity to contribute to this body of knowledge. As you may have guessed, under the tenets of “political correctness,” I can say “old fart” for the same reason the black folks can say the “N” word. Keep up the good work.
The idea of rifling was known and applied as far back as the 16th century. Rifles were not on much military use because you had to pound the ball down the barrel to engage the rifling. It was the development of the Minié ball bullet that made rifles practical.
I didn’t even know the Amish went hunting. Between this and the beard assaults, we’re learning about aspects of their society that don’t fit the Hollywood/National Geographic image.
I’m waiting for someone to break a story about Amish blacksmiths secretly developing a nuclear weapon. Of course, if they build an ICBM they won’t be able to keep it a secret – the whole community will come out for a missile-raising. Don’t laugh. A missile constructed almost entirely of oak would be invisible to radar. Of course, it would be a horse-drawn missile so the response time in the event of an attack sould be on the order of days or weeks, not minutes. But then Homeland Security won’t be looking for a missile shaped like a buggy, will they?
We need to keep an eye on these people…
You might want to call Department of Homeland Security and report them. (/s)
thanks Howard
well worded and appropriate essay.
Thank you. It’s always nice to get some positive feedback.
YOU have done a disservice by implying that some of the rules of safe gunhandling were ignored here when there were, in fact, being followed. The teaching during a “teachable moment” should be based on the FACTS, without throwing in spurious implications.
The only “rule” (you left out #4, btw) that was violated was the first one. #2 and #3 were followed. The discharge was intentional, in order to clear the rifle for cleaning. The gun was loaded specifically because it WAS ready to use. Perhaps you are a superman who can load a muzzleloader in time to get a shot on some deer, but it’s highly unlikely that the 98% of the rest of the muzzleloader crowd can do so. It’s a muzzleloader. You can’t just drop the magazine and pull back the bolt, thereby ejecting a round that may be in the chamber.
“YOU have done a disservice by implying that some of the rules of safe gunhandling were ignored here when there were, in fact, being followed.”
You agree that he pointed the gun in an unsafe direction, which makes the rest of your rant irrelevant.
“The teaching during a “teachable moment” should be based on the FACTS, without throwing in spurious implications.”
It’s a fact, established by the Sheriff’s office, that the girl died from a gunshot wound. Looks like it’s you who’s having trouble with fact, and projecting your shortcomings on me in an angry manner. Hope you have a Merry Christmas, or is the holiday stressing you out?
“The discharge was intentional”
Do you have some evidence of this? Then perhaps you should contact the Holmes County Sheriff.
http://www.holmescountysheriff.org/ (330) 674-8504
“Perhaps you are a superman who can load a muzzleloader in time to get a shot on some deer, but it’s highly unlikely that the 98% of the rest of the muzzleloader crowd can do so.”
Irrelevant hyperbole, unrelated to topic at hand. Nice try with the personal attack, though, attempting to Alinsky the discussion away from the topic.
“It’s a muzzleloader. You can’t just drop the magazine and pull back the bolt, thereby ejecting a round that may be in the chamber.”
See my copy above, where I note that shooters should be familiar with their firearms, preferably before they shoot it in the air because they think that’s the only way to clear it.
So what’s your point here?
I think the most likely scenario is David Snyder’s above. Unless you have a modern-model breech-loading “muzzleloader”, the most practical way to “unload” it is to shoot it. And that’s how most hunters do it, in my experience. And, you can’t leave it loaded overnight. Powder corrosion, and moisture absorption, make that a very bad idea. You have to clear and clean it every night.
The statement “preparing to clean his muzzle-loaded rifle after deer hunting and fired it” describes a ritula that old school muzzleloader hunters perform at the end of the day. It could have been an AD (as is typical when a modern rifle goes off “accidentally” during cleaning), but I doubt it.
The mistake I think this guy made was not pointing it at the ground to clear it. Which is a massive, fundamental error. I was trained to never shoot unless you see dirt on the other side of your target.
“The mistake I think this guy made was not pointing it at the ground to clear it.” Therein lies the crux of the matter and the heart of the story. Had he violated all possible safety rules except pointing in a safe direction, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.
At KR Training, we teach the fallacy of AD (Accidental Discharge). Some older firearms are still capable of firing themselves under unusual conditions, such as being dropped while loaded. Even in these cases, I have seen legal consequences. Otherwise, the trigger MUST be pressed for the gun to shoot. Therefore, this was negligent, not accidental. A subtle but mportant difference, because we want our students to know they are responsible for every round they shoot.
http://www.krtraining.com/
Agreed. I have taught gun safety to a number of young people. I begin by having them memorize the safety rules, then I give this little speech;
This is not a toy. Once you put that gun in your hand, you are responsible for everything that happens after that. You dont get a pass for an ‘accident’. If a meteor falls out of the sky and hits your gun and it goes off, you are responsible, you dont get a pass. British Captains go down with their ships because no matter what happens to the ship, no matter who does it or how unlikely it is, they are held responsible and will be hanged if they try to go home and say ‘oops it wasnt my fault’, or ‘ I couldnt help it’. Think of yourself as a British Captain, and that gun is your ship. No matter what happens you are responsible, you dont get a pass. If you make a mistake or allow an ‘accident’ to happen you cant fix it. You can never put it right or take that bullet back. You wont get a pass from me or anyone else. If you cant handle that kind of responsibility then dont pick up the gun.
( In Rapides Parish, since the late 80′s, there are no gun accidents. The DA’s office finally got fed up with ‘hunting accidents’ and decided to prosecute all such incidents without exception. It is amazing how much those incidents have decreased since then. There used to be one or two or three a year, now there is one every two or three years. There was one last year, but none the year before or so far this year.)
I have a friend who has been a mortician for 30 years. He once said to me “There is no such thing as a freak accident.”
What he meant is that all accidents are foreseeable and preventable.
Example: I have had one gun accident in 35 years. When I was a kid I would take my shotgun, a sleeping bag, a box of matches and some salt and pepper, a string and some hooks and go camping. I was lucky enough to live near a couple of hundred square miles of mostly wilderness, so I could walk away from the house with those items and walk for as long as I cared to, camp, and come home one or two days later. I would eat whatever I could kill or catch. My Labrador would often go with me.
On one of these trips, when I was about 17-18 I had chosen to camp near a large beaver pond and began preparing the site. I picked up all the pinecones and sticks, raked up some pinestraw into a pad and rolled my sleeping bag on it. I then laid my shotgun ( A beloved Browning A-5) on the sleeping bag on its left side. I turned around and walked away to collect firewood and had not gone 20 feet when the gun went off.
I will bet at this point some of you have already guessed what I did wrong. Smokey, my lab, had gone strait to the sleeping bag to lay down, stepped on the trigger gaurd area, pressing the safety off and pulling the trigger.
That may seem like a freak accident, but it was not and was entirely foreseeable. The dog is going to get on the sleeping bag, that is a certainty. The gun was laying on it’s left side with the safety exposed, so what seems on the surface like a wildly unlikely event is actually pretty likely. I realized that after I figured out what had happened. I was very lucky that neither I nor the dog nor anyone else was injured. It put the fear of God in me and I have never given myself a pass on safety since.
I’ll respectfully disagree about freak accidents. To me, they’re when someone gets hurt or killed in an statistically unlikely manner while doing an ordinary thing, often due to no fault on his or her own. To think otherwise is to claim perfect knowledge of all risks at all times.
For example, we had this terrible accident here a couple years ago. Millions of people buy gasoline every day but how often do you hear of someone dying in this manner?
Here’s another example of what can be described as a freak accident.
“Pitts and others heard McKay saying her brakes had gone out but Whitlock said that there was no evidence that any vehicle malfunction was a contributing factor in the crash. Alcohol and drugs were not suspected either, Whitlock said.”
Perhaps someone should check McKay’s cell phone records. Saying that a vehicle driven by a 20 y/o running head on into another vehicle in a parking lot is a freak accident is like saying snow at the north pole is an anomaly.
“But on the morning of her death, she put a new patch on without removing an old one.”
There is no such thing as a freak accident. I didnt say there werent people who cant see trouble coming, but in every case I am aware of, they should have.
Not relevant to reckless discharge in this case, but relevant to people that always rattl on about “The Four Rules” and how rule one CAUSES accidents. Grant Cunningham has written on this many times, and as well as being a fine smith, he is a noted trainer:
To be blunt: I don’t like Rule #1. In fact, I believe that it is not just unnecessary, but that it actually sets people up to have accidents. I don’t believe it makes anyone safer – I contend that it has the opposite effect.
It boils down to this: people do stupid things with guns that they perceive are unloaded. (Re-read that line, focusing on the word “perceive.”) Once people have convinced themselves that a gun is unloaded, they treat it differently. That is where accidents occur.
The trouble with Rule #1 is that it encourages such shoddy behavior.
Follow me here: “treat all guns as if they were loaded” tacitly admits that there are, in fact, two states for a firearm – loaded and unloaded. If there were not an unloaded state, it would not be necessary to admonish someone to treat a gun “as if” it were in the loaded state, would it? If unloaded guns did not exist, the statement would make no sense. Therefore, the phrase itself establishes that there exists such a thing as an unloaded gun. Clear so far?
While Rule #1 logically admits that there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, it asks us to pretend that it doesn’t really exist. This is important, as the rule only makes sense if the state of being ‘unloaded’ exists, but it implores us to make believe that such a state doesn’t really exist. This situation is called cognitive dissonance: holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. It’s a state of mind that humans don’t tolerate all that well.
If one accepts the fallacy that an unloaded state doesn’t exist, it becomes clear in the mind that the remaining three rules apply only to loaded guns. After all, the first rule says that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun; therefore, the other three rules can apply only to loaded guns, because – remember! – unloaded guns “don’t exist.”
Here’s where that cognitive dissonance thing comes back to bite us. The human mind cannot maintain two contradictory concepts (“there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, but it doesn’t exist because all guns are always loaded”) without resolving them in some fashion. The way that most (if not all) people apparently resolve this is to apply the rules to all guns, unless they’ve convinced themselves that the gun in question isn’t loaded.
In other words, to resolve the logical conflict that Rule #1 establishes, the mind translates it to say “treat all guns as if they are loaded, unless you’ve verified that they aren’t.” The other three rules are tossed right out the window, because they obviously don’t apply to unloaded guns!
See how this comes about? If not, re-read the preceding paragraphs.
That, gentle readers, is the crux of the problem! The sad side of Rule #1 is that it implies once you’ve verified a gun is unloaded, the rest of the rules don’t apply to it; you may handle it differently. That’s when the accidents come, and is why I say that people do stupid things with guns that they think are unloaded.
Proof? Easy: it is axiomatic that all gun accidents occur with unloaded guns. Those are guns that people had convinced themselves were not in the loaded state, and therefore didn’t fall under the rest of the rules. No matter what the experience or training level of the person involved, “I thought it was unloaded” is the first excuse out of their mouths when something bad happens.
Need more? Here’s an interactive proof: go into any gun store, and watch as customers (and often the counter clerks) sweep muzzles over everyone in the store. Now complain to a clerk about the shoddy practice; I guarantee the first thing you’ll hear from his or her mouth is “don’t worry, it’s not loaded.”
Still not convinced? Ask Massad Ayoob to tell you the tragic story of a well regarded and highly experienced competition shooter who accidentally killed his wife – with an “unloaded” gun, of course. My contention is that he followed Rule #1 like most people, but that its logical failings caused him to treat the gun differently because he was sure it was unloaded. The result was sadly inevitable.
This is why the forum debate runs so many pages, and ultimately devolves into the attitude “of course, Rule #1 doesn’t apply to experienced shooters, who understand what the exceptions are.” I’m sorry, folks, but I believe that any safety rule that implies or encourages “exceptions” – experienced operator or no – is a “rule” that should be thrown out.
One of the best shooting instructors I know – Georges Rahbani – has done just that. He acknowledged the problem and dealt with the issue by eliminating what I’ll call “Traditional Rule #1″ from his curriculum. Instead, he teaches that any and all guns, loaded or unloaded, are treated to the same standards, which he calls The Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
Never point a gun – any gun, loaded or unloaded – at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and of where your bullets will land.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
There are no exceptions, and thus less chance for the accidents that usually result from them.–Grant Cunningham