They tell you that it's RULE #1.


PDA






Brick
October 3, 2004, 03:20 AM
Yes. They tell you time and time again:

1. KEEP YOUR STINKING FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNLESS YOU WANT TO DESTROY WHAT YOU'RE AIMING AT.
2. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.
3. ALWAYS ASSUME THE GUN IS READY TO FIRE.
4. ALWAYS POINT THE WEAPON AWAY FROM PEOPLE OR PROPERTY. PRACTICE POINTING IT IN A SAFE DIRECTION.
5. IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LOADED OR HOW TO USE IT, LEAVE IT ALONE AND ASK A KNOWLEDGABLE, RESPONSEABLE ADULT.

Can never, ever forget the rules. EVER. I don't even own a firearm yet I know the rules. Everytime you practice, practice the rules. Including if you're presenting it to nuetralize the threat.

Want a video taped evidence? Good thing it must have been Glaser Safety Slugs or JHP. (something)


Watch the gun in the left hand side. Bullet strikes man in the head. :what:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=negligence.mpg

Could never, ever be underestimated.
:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "They tell you that it's RULE #1." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Valkman
October 3, 2004, 03:23 AM
That tape is at least 2 years old, and no one got shot in the head. She shot the ground and did injure her partner, who I heard was not a happy camper. A CCw instructor also told us back in 5/93 that she was being sued, but not by whom. Hopefully she got fired at least.

PMDW
October 3, 2004, 03:24 AM
If it hit him in the head, it was not directly. He didn't look hurt in the end.

Valkman
October 3, 2004, 03:28 AM
The way the suspect pops his head up and looks at her - he didn't get shot. :) If you notice she had the gun pointed much higher two seconds before. Good thing she lowered it or she would've shot him in the back!

Okiecruffler
October 3, 2004, 03:43 AM
And I think it could pop up alot more often. I have it saved so I can show new shooters why they must not touch the trigger unless they intend to shoot. It seems to leave an impression.

nemesis
October 3, 2004, 04:34 PM
Watch the gun in the left hand side. Bullet strikes man in the head

As I understand it, nobody was struck directly by the ND round.

effengee
October 3, 2004, 05:26 PM
I was watching History Channel and saw a noted "firearms expert" as the title under his name proclaimed point a luger at his own chest while turning the pistol around in his hands.
Then he showed it off with his finger on the trigger.

Can't remember his name, but the next guy was showing off another gun and kept his index finger along the frame and the muzzle pointed safely.

Firearms safety is no accident. It's a requirement.

Brick
October 4, 2004, 12:54 AM
That tape is at least 2 years old, and no one got shot in the head. She shot the ground and did injure her partner, who I heard was not a happy camper. A CCw instructor also told us back in 5/93 that she was being sued, but not by whom. Hopefully she got fired at least.

thanks for clearing that up. yes i think it serves a good demo of what COULD happen

As I understand it, nobody was struck directly by the ND round.

sorry I didn't know. but if you watch it slow-mo you can see him put is head on his left arm like he was hit.

ckyllo
October 4, 2004, 08:03 AM
I thought it looked like he may of been hit by the ricochet(sp) that or the shot might of kicked up some chunks of blacktop and hit him.
brick,
A CCw instructor also told us back in 5/93 that she was being sued
was the '93 a typo?

Bubbles
October 4, 2004, 09:36 AM
Here's an ND story from just last week...

http://www.leesburgtoday.com/current.cfm?catid=6&newsid=9542

Billmanweh
October 4, 2004, 09:40 AM
any particular reason why people prefer ND to AD? obviously, it's both. just curious...

BluesBear
October 4, 2004, 09:57 AM
Thanks Bubbles, that was an interesting article. But could it have been any more poorly written?
Troxell said that statements from the investigator and his wife, as well as evidence at the scene, lead the sheriff’s office to believe this incident was accidental. An accidental incident?
Is stupidity ever an accident?
I guess you could possibly term it as a negligent accident.
The gun the investigator was cleaning may have been recently purchased, Troxell said, and it was an older model. What the heck does that have to do with anything?

It could just as well have been a wheel lock blunderbuss that he purchased that morning. If he had observed the 4 rules then no one would have been hurt.

Hells Bells™ if he had just made sure that it was UNLOADED no one would have been hurt. Why in the heck was this fool attenpting to clean a gun that he knew so little about as to know where the bullets went!

Kilroy
October 4, 2004, 10:17 AM
In the extended version of the video tape, the officer who fired the shot tries to re-holster her pistol, fully cocked, and when she cannot do so, turns and runs to her left, then further left off camera, waving the pistol in the air as she runs away.

One of her academy instructors told a class I was in, that her excuse was that the pistol was possessed.

Pebcac
October 4, 2004, 11:42 AM
The Brady Group sez:

Only the police...should have hanguns.

Yeah, that whole 40 hours of training did wonders for her, now didn't it? I wonder if she ever steps on a firing range at any other time during the year besides qualification? Somehow, I doubt it....

Bubbles
October 4, 2004, 01:39 PM
could it have been any more poorly written?

I've learned over the years not to expect too much from that paper. That way I'm never disappointed.

Valkman
October 4, 2004, 05:24 PM
was the '93 a typo?

Well, that tape is OLD! :) But not that old - let's try '03!

That's when I took my CCW class here in Vegas, and I didn't live here yet. That tape had already been around for a while, and during a break I asked the instructor (retired Sheriff's deputy) about it. He walked away and said "No comment!", then when he was a ways away he turned again and said "She's being sued." The second half of the class had a new instructor, and he's the one that told us that her partner was injured and very unhappy.

My neighbor works for Metro in IA, and I rarely see him but one of these days I want to ask him about it.

Valkman
October 4, 2004, 06:12 PM
One of her academy instructors told a class I was in, that her excuse was that the pistol was possessed.

It was possessed - by an idiot! :D

dav
October 4, 2004, 07:06 PM
billmanweh asked:
any particular reason why people prefer ND to AD? obviously, it's both.it is not 'obviously' both.

If a gun is set down on a table and an earthquake makes it fall off and discharge, I would call that an AD. If it ever happened.

If a person is handling a gun and causes it to fire (at anything other than an intended target) then it is ALWAYS negligence, one way or another.

Billmanweh
October 4, 2004, 07:08 PM
it is not 'obviously' both

I was referring to the video taped incident, where it was obviously both

HABU
October 5, 2004, 12:00 AM
In the video it was not both. It was an ND.

Now we have 5 rules? I always thought that the first rule was that all firearms are considered loaded.

Billmanweh
October 5, 2004, 01:02 AM
we must be using different definitions of accident. an event can be both an accidental and caused by negligence. like that shooting in the video.

10 Ring Tao
October 5, 2004, 01:52 AM
And this is an example of the LEOs that were allowed to have "assault weapons" because they are so much better trained than I am. :rolleyes:

ShackleMeNot
October 5, 2004, 09:36 AM
There is a difference between an Accidental Discharge (AD) and a Negligent Discharge (ND).

Accidental happens without human interaction. It can only occur with a firearm that has a mechanical problem (slam fire or broken sear) or in the case of some other external force (excessive heat causing a round in the chamber to cook off). Negligence is where a person has their finger on the trigger and fires the weapon when that is not what they intended to do.

This video is a classic example of a Negligent Discharge.

Billmanweh
October 5, 2004, 04:21 PM
that might be your definition of an accident, but I think most people have accidents with human interaction. what would you call it if you spill your coffee at the breakfast table, an accident or negligence?

GEM
October 5, 2004, 04:27 PM
Every once in awhile, someone sees this tape and has a hissy fit of pompous righteousness on some gun list. To be outrageous, part of that comes from it being a police woman. It confirms some guys' stereotypes.

One can equally discover a tape of a suspect with a knife being held down and a male officer running over to the melee with an MP-5 and doing the exact same thing.

The official line was that the suspect was resisting and the male officer had to fire a shot into the ground to scare him into submission. Bullpoopy.

You know, there are a great many very well known folk who have ND'ed. A famous dude recently admitted in print to 3 of them. I know one who shot his car dashboard. I've seen another well known guy brain fart and draw on the class.

Terrible lapses - yes. I think this tape gets such outrage because it is a woman. :fire: Flame on!

Buck Snort
October 5, 2004, 04:49 PM
I don't know what "ND" stands for but I've seen "AD" (accidental discharge) used a lot. I take every opportunity to tell people that there's no such thing as an "accidental discharge" of a firearm, there's only careless gun handling.

Billmanweh
October 5, 2004, 05:09 PM
is there any such thing as accidental spilling of coffee or do you call it negligent cup handling?

wasrjoe
October 5, 2004, 06:21 PM
is there any such thing as accidental spilling of coffee or do you call it negligent cup handling?

Guns are a much more serious a subject in which most "unwanted" discharges happen because of human negligance, so I believe that a more defined and seperate definition of accidental and negligent are warranted. Of course it's all semantics, humans define words, so we can all argue it until we are blue in the face because no one is ever "right".

Valkman
October 5, 2004, 06:36 PM
Terrible lapses - yes. I think this tape gets such outrage because it is a woman. Flame on!

I think you're wrong, as I've seen that video posted many times and the reaction was always the same - that officer should be fired or whatever punishment that poster thinks she should have gotten. I've never seen people make any comments that would make me think they wouldn't have said the same thing if it was a guy. After all, when someone can't handle a firearm it doesn't matter what gender they are! :)

Billmanweh
October 5, 2004, 07:28 PM
Of course it's all semantics, humans define words, so we can all argue it until we are blue in the face because no one is ever "right".

True. I just don't see the problem with using the word "accident", no matter how serious the situation is. I'm also not thinking of the terms as mutually exclusive. To me, "accident" describes whether an event was intentional or not, and "negligence" describes a failure to use reasonable care. If you fire your gun when you didn't intend to, it is (by definition, if it wasn't a mechanical issue) both of those.

BluesBear
October 6, 2004, 09:42 PM
There is a HUGE difference between negligence and accidental.

The bottom line is that if you follow the 4 rules of firearms safety you CANNOT have a negligent discharge. Ain't gonna happen. Can't happen. It becomes impossible.


I think the reason this video keeps reappearing all over the place is because it is a Police Officer who has the ND. The fact that it's a female officer just adds fuel to the fire.

Watch the video. Her firing the weapon was due to NEGLIGENCE.
Now, if the officer or suspect had been hit, THAT would have been an ACCIDENT.

Billmanweh
October 6, 2004, 10:35 PM
There's no doubt that it was negligent. But if you think it wasn't accidental, you don't know the meaning of the word "accident".

sendec
October 6, 2004, 11:03 PM
"Accident" implies that an incident was unavoidable. This example was eminently avoidable.

I cannot understand why people have trouble with this concept as it pertains to firearms. There is no margin for error, negligence, inattention or laxity in the firearms field. None, zero, nada, zip. If a person isnt willing to commit to this high of a standard I would recommend, and would insist if I had the power, that they find a less demanding hobby or occupation.

The only "accidental" discharges that I am aware of have involved mechanical faults, but even then those faults were usually the result of improper maintenance or adjustment, and are very rare. Even things like cookoffs can be avoided.

Billmanweh
October 6, 2004, 11:06 PM
Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>

Seriously, invest in a dictionary.

roo_ster
October 6, 2004, 11:10 PM
RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.

RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.

RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 80 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.

RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/jeff/jeff6_2.html

************

Cooper was an opinionated old cuss, but he sure knew how to boil it down to the essentials.

STW
October 7, 2004, 05:45 PM
On a (semi-)related note, I always find it odd that many cite lack of adherence to the four rules as a factor in suicide by firearm.

To my way of thinking if you're committing suicide- 1. You know the gun is loaded (otherwise what's the point); 2. You are more than willing to destroy what's being aimed at (you); 3. Unless there is clear evidence of a missed first shot we have to assume your finger was off the trigger until the critical moment; and 4. You're clear about your target, though an argument can be made that lack of a suitable backstop could be a factor.

BluesBear
October 7, 2004, 07:01 PM
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance :rolleyes:

Finger on the trigger means you PLAN to fire the weapon.

Therefore when the gun does fire it is clearly NOT an accident.

Quoting a dictionary will do you no good if you can't understand the context.

HABU
October 8, 2004, 02:26 AM
I am amused that someone cannot grasp the difference between an accident and an incident. Quoting the dictionary, thats classic.

Remember when cops and firefighters were considered civilians? The dictionary used to define anyone not subject to the UCMJ as a civilian. Over time, people adulterated the term. Now cops and firefighters think they are not civilians. Same thing goes with Webster's definition of an accident. People like Bill are getting that definition all goofed up too.
:rolleyes:

Tharg
October 8, 2004, 03:15 AM
Yeap -

kinda no way around it...

an accidental discharge might be the gun was dislodged from your grip and fired when it hit the ground.

or a puppy (in a different thread) pulled the trigger for ya... (altho that MIGHT be seen as a intended discharge... rofl)

If its YOUR finger on the trigger and the gun "goes off" then it was the person holding it - and it was an ND... no two ways about it.

I could see accidental discharge if say - for whatever reason - the trigger was NOT pulled at all - and heat or something made the primer go off...

but ANY time one's finger is on the trigger - that is intent... just because "they didn't mean to pull it that far" doesn't make it accidental - it definitely makes it negligent. In our CHL class - the instructor clearly dragged it into our heads that finger does not belong on the trigger unless you are intending to shoot it - and that "stress's" can actually make you shoot when you "did not intend" to - thus why the rule is to keep yer finger OFF the bloody trigger.

J/Tharg!

MJRW
October 8, 2004, 10:09 AM
Bill,

First, I have to agree with Blues there. You have incorrectly applied the word.

Second, it is damn near irrelevent. What we have is an industry and field definition that is accepted and known within the industry and this field. The definitions of these terms will trump any combination of dictionary definition of the words by themselves. Just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean there isn't a working definition. "Sometimes it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

The reason there are two different terms with two different definitions is that it is imperative that there be a distinction between a discharge caused by the operator and a discharge caused by a malfunction. Accidental discharges DO occur, contrary to some people's beliefs. However, they are significantly more rare than the negligent discharge. You are proposing they are the same thing. Are we to assume then that you don't see a reason for a distinction between the two and they should be considered the same? And if not, please, take on the valiant quest of teaching us all the "proper" way of thinking.

Billmanweh
October 8, 2004, 11:34 AM
First, I have to agree with Blues there. You have incorrectly applied the word.

I understand. The problem is, you're both wrong.

"Sometimes it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

I agree that several people posting on this thread should take your advice and not comment.

The reason there are two different terms with two different definitions is that it is imperative that there be a distinction between a discharge caused by the operator and a discharge caused by a malfunction. Accidental discharges DO occur, contrary to some people's beliefs. However, they are significantly more rare than the negligent discharge. You are proposing they are the same thing. Are we to assume then that you don't see a reason for a distinction between the two and they should be considered the same? And if not, please, take on the valiant quest of teaching us all the "proper" way of thinking.

I'm not suggesting that "ND" is the improper term. I'm saying that correcting someone for using "AD", or saying that the event in the video wasn't an "AD" is incorrect. Intent is absolutely the question. Her intent was to watch the suspect, not to shoot him. Obviously. The fact that her finger was on the trigger was due to her negligence and inattention. Pulling the trigger was both negligent and an accident. If she had intended to pull the trigger, it was an attempted murder. Is anyone here claiming that was intending to kill him? The inability to understand that it was both an AD and an ND is just an ignorance of the language.

MJRW
October 8, 2004, 11:39 AM
Good to know here. When you are aligned against the world, always blame the world. Thanks.

MJRW
October 8, 2004, 11:48 AM
By the way, thought I would show you the world:

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=1105975&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

You read up. You'll find dozens if not approaching or exceeding a hundred people who agree and maybe enough to cover a whole hand arguing your side. The terms are defined, if you don't like it then I suppose you'll just have to deal with it. But you are wrong in telling everyone else they are wrong by trying to define industry terms by single word definitions that are shaky at best in their applicability.

Billmanweh
October 8, 2004, 11:59 AM
You read up. You'll find dozens if not approaching or exceeding a hundred people who agree and maybe enough to cover a whole hand arguing your side.

Whether anyone agrees with me or not is irrelevant. The officer's actions on the video were both negligent and an accident.

effengee
October 8, 2004, 12:03 PM
I laughed till I cried reading through all the threads here...
Here are the definitions as I see them:

Accident:
Spilling your coffee on your lap. Although, this could be considered negligent because you were the idiot who put the cup in the way of your arm and didn't bother to pay enough attention to where it was.

Negligent:
Nearly shooting someone for not following the four cardinal rules.

If your finger NEVER touches the trigger until you have a firearm pointed safely at a target with a reasonable backstop, there is no negligence.

Now, thank God she observed one rule:
She did keep the weapon pointing safely.
Too often I've seen live coverage of police and ATF with everything from revolvers to fully automatic weapons locked and loaded with a finger on the trigger and pointing right at the guy next to him...

"The gun was posessed!"
I don't even know where to begin on that one...:( :uhoh: :confused: :scrutiny: :mad: :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

What kind of training they must have!
It's gotta take a ton of skill to be able to carry a posessed handgun!
I'm impressed.
Usually one only sees posessed people, animals and toys... ROTFLMAO

Last time I checked the dictionary that I use, Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: pos·sessed
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : influenced or controlled by something (as an evil spirit or a passion) (2) : MAD, CRAZED b : urgently desirous to do or have something.

Unless you believe that an evil spirit was in control of that weapon, then by any definition of her actions, she was negligent.

If there is one thing I've learned in my short time here on earth:
"Safety is no accident"

No matter what, if I shoot someone, or cause someone to be hurt by my firearm discharging, and if I was to say it was an accident because it was unintentional I'd be right. However, I would also be negligent, regardless of the circumstances.

If she came running up, carrying the weapon safely, slipped on some coffee that a fellow officer had unintentionally spilled, fumbled her firearm while trying to stop her fall, and in so doing, touched the trigger, or if the live weapon just happened to drop or hit the pavement in such a way as to allow the firing pin to contact the primer with sufficient force, then maybe, just maybe, that would be considered an accident...

The way my dad taught the four rules to me:
1 It's always loaded. Even if you just unloaded it.
2 Watch out for the muzzle. If there's ever any doubt, refer to rule #1
3 NEVER touch the trigger unless you want the gun to go off.
4 Know what you are shooting at before you shoot, and be certain that what's up to a mile behind it can withstand a bullet if you miss.

jim

BluesBear
October 8, 2004, 01:06 PM
I yield to the wisdom of others who can express it better than I.

Some theories are neat, plausible and wrong. (Grump THR 06-16-04)

Even if the other person is absolutely and completely WRONG, they've usually got a decently thought-out argument to back up their clueless posts (M.Irwin TFL 07-12-2001)

It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do. (Baba Louie THR 09/29/03)

Sorry but I really don't care about or have time for stupid folks. Folks got a right to be wrong, stupid or both. (sm THR 05-06-04)

Billmanweh
October 8, 2004, 01:12 PM
No matter what, if I shoot someone, or cause someone to be hurt by my firearm discharging, and if I was to say it was an accident because it was unintentional I'd be right. However, I would also be negligent, regardless of the circumstances.

that's pretty much the point I've been trying to make

riverdog
October 8, 2004, 02:38 PM
It's only irrelevant if you don't care about your reputation on the board. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is irrelevant. The officer's actions on the video were both negligent and an accident. While in the officer's and Bill's mind an accident happened, the discharge of the firearm was caused by negligence on the part of the officer holding the gun with her finger on the trigger.

You can have an "accident" and a "negligent-discharge" at the same time, but you cannot have a "negligent-discharge" and an "accidental-discharge" -- by industry definition one excludes the other.

sendec
October 8, 2004, 03:58 PM
If a person acted negiligently, which is what occurs in the screaming, massive majority of these cases, it is a negligent discharge.

Maybe we need a "reckless discharge" too just to muddy what most of us see as crystal-clear water. I will not use the term accident as it borders into act-of-God territory, and I am certain that Cooper has thoroughly indoctrinated him on the Big 4.

I may have to try "demonic possession" next time I step in it: "Just prove I'm not possessed!!!!!" I wonder if my EAP covers that.

Billmanweh
October 8, 2004, 04:48 PM
You can have an "accident" and a "negligent-discharge" at the same time, but you cannot have a "negligent-discharge" and an "accidental-discharge" -- by industry definition one excludes the other.

You're wrong.

http://www.sportshooter.com/encyclopedia/AccidentalDischarge.htm

Try googling "accidental discharge" (205,000 hits) and "negligent discharge" (84,300 hits)

sendec
October 8, 2004, 07:46 PM
I unilateraly declare that Billmanweh is right and the rest of us are wrong. Mea Freakin Culpa

(Psst, everybody else, when he turns around and is'nt listening let's go back to the way that has served us so well, albeit in our ignorance, for so long.

Wait, wait......wait for it.....

there he goes! ND! ND! ND!)

Atticus
October 8, 2004, 08:13 PM
The term "unintentional" (UD) has been offered up in nearly all of these types of threads...but people seem to enjoy argueing about it more than anything else. Obviously, negligence is the cause of many, if not most, accidents. I'm more curious about the term "industry" ...what exactly IS this industry...and when did we all become subject to it's rules of language? Does "industry" language policy require insulting fellow gun owners as well? :rolleyes:

Wayne D
October 8, 2004, 10:16 PM
Everybody is wrong, the issue is not whether it's an accidental discharge or a negligent discharge! It's whether it is a "Possessed Firearms Discharge" or a "Demonic Discharge". I'm going to bed.

ilcylic
October 8, 2004, 11:16 PM
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still a retard.

Don't y'all have anything better to get your knickers in a twist about?

-Ogre

HABU
October 9, 2004, 12:14 AM
I suppose it was an accident that I put a .270 round in my 7MM mag. :rolleyes:

Never argue with a fool...people won't be able to tell the difference.

Atticus
October 9, 2004, 12:37 AM
Well I guess that depends. Did you know the round was a .270 and negligently put it in anyway...or did you put it in unintentionally?

Sunray
October 9, 2004, 12:37 AM
Nope. Rule number one is assume every firearm is loaded.

BluesBear
October 9, 2004, 05:25 AM
Try googling "accidental discharge" (205,000 hits) and "negligent discharge" (84,300 hits) Just because more morons misuse a word or phrase doesn't make it correct. :banghead:

If that becomes the case then it will only be a few years before our official language becomes ebonics.
:barf:

EvilOmega
October 9, 2004, 07:21 AM
ac•ci•dent

1. An unexpected and undesirable event
Q: you want a gun that doesn’t fire when the trigger is pulled?

2. An unforeseen incident
Q: You where expecting a flag that said bang and instead a bullet came out.

neg•li•gence

Law. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Wayne D
October 9, 2004, 08:25 AM
I suppose it was an accident that I put a .270 round in my 7MM mag.


Not if the gun was possessed!

:D I’m sorry, I just can’t get over the possessed gun thing.

Billmanweh
October 9, 2004, 10:49 AM
Just because more morons misuse a word or phrase doesn't make it correct.

The point was, there is no "industry" standard term, as was claimed earlier.

ND, AD, UD, they are all correct

Wayne D
October 10, 2004, 10:29 AM
The issue here is not the technical definitions in Webster’s. The issue is the impression the general public gets when they hear these terms used in relation to firearms. In a time when the anti-gun news media does everything they can to make people think guns are so dangerous that they shouldn’t even have them in the house, we need to be careful of the terminology that we use. The news media loves the bogus claim that a gun kept in the home is x% (I can’t remember the exact percentage but it was high) more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self-defense. Couple this with news reports of gun “accidents” and the average non-gun person is going to think that guns are at fault or the cause of the accident. However, when the term “negligent” is used, it is plain that the fault is with the user and not the machine used, in this case guns. Why does that matter here, between us? If a non-gun person is surfing our forum and reads discussions about gun accidents then we have done nothing to change his impressions from those formed from watching the news, but if he reads our discussion of negligent discharges then maybe he will start to understand.

If you enjoyed reading about "They tell you that it's RULE #1." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!