Full Metal Jacket
member
i think this thread is dead in the water. nobody's going to come to a consensus and agree on anything...
Accidental vs. Negligent
- Thread starter Bliggida
- Start date
- Status
Fine line. How many defects exist because of human failure/neglect?
IMO, ADs are uncommon.
True example: Shooter improperly holsters Glock, gun falls to the ground, discharges and the projectile strikes him in the abdomen. Two mistakes: did not holster properly and had modified the gun bypassing the safety features.
The cook off scenario would certainly be an AD. A part failure that could not be foreseen with reasonable inspection would be an AD.
Accidental implies that there was no way to prevent the occurence.
Negligence implies the opposite.
IMO - a true accidental discharge is very, very rare. Most unintentional discharges of a weapon could be prevented by proper maintenance and proper handling procedures.
Negligence implies the opposite.
IMO - a true accidental discharge is very, very rare. Most unintentional discharges of a weapon could be prevented by proper maintenance and proper handling procedures.
Balog
Member
The "car accident" analogy is not accurate. There are a great number of forces beyond your control that can lead to accidents: other drivers, atmospheric conditions, other drivers, mechanical failures, other drivers, road debris, other drivers etc.
With guns, you have four childishly simple rules to observe, and (aside from self defense situations) no outside forces acting against you. There simply is no comparison.
With guns, you have four childishly simple rules to observe, and (aside from self defense situations) no outside forces acting against you. There simply is no comparison.
ReadyontheRight
Member
I also agree with Negligent. You are stepping up to a higher standard when you pick up a firearm.
The Bushmaster
Member
"Cause and effect" gentlemen. It's just that simple. You "caused" it and the "effect" was a bullet exiting the muzzle unwanted...No such thing as an "accident" (only GOD can cause an accident). Everything else is caused by some sort of negligence on the part of the operator.
hammerklavier
Member
If it was an accident then it's an AD (those are rare), otherwise it was a ND.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I use negligent when it's the fault of the handler. I have had one negligent discharge in my life when I was a teenager. Fortunately no one was hurt and I learned from the mistake. I'm a lucky one. Accidental discharges are when the equipment fails. Just my .02
Flintknapper
Member
Both terms are correct (depending upon circumstance).
They should not be used interchangably though....as there are real legal reasons not to.
Although valid "accidents" can and do happen, I believe the vast majority of unintentional discharges...stem from one form of negligence or another.
Unfortunately, much of our society has moved toward a position of non-accountability. Many folks equate/define an "accident" with anything that is "unintentional".
Good gun handling practices, being intimately familiar with your weapon and NEVER being "lax"...will prevent nearly all mishaps.
But, there always exists "STUPID", and there is no cure for that.
Flint.
They should not be used interchangably though....as there are real legal reasons not to.
Although valid "accidents" can and do happen, I believe the vast majority of unintentional discharges...stem from one form of negligence or another.
Unfortunately, much of our society has moved toward a position of non-accountability. Many folks equate/define an "accident" with anything that is "unintentional".
Good gun handling practices, being intimately familiar with your weapon and NEVER being "lax"...will prevent nearly all mishaps.
But, there always exists "STUPID", and there is no cure for that.
Flint.
LOL. If you possess a firearm that is mechanically defective and accidently discharges, then you are negligent, correct? Because you have a duty to make sure that your firearm is in good mechanical condition. That includes the duty to inspect the parts and make sure they are not defective. Failing to properly inspect the parts and discover the mechanical defect is a negligent act on your part.
Balog
Member
Frem: obeying the four rules is a reasonable standard. Being a competent gunsmith able to diagnose parts that might fail in the near future is not.
ny32182
Member
The definition of accident:
–noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
The definition of "accident" is not directly contingent upon cause. Negligence is the cause of the vast majority of unintentional discharges; it does not have a bearing on the definition of an accident. An accidental discharge caused by mechanical failure which the shooter could not be reasonably expected to control, or negligence: Both are accidents, with different causes.
–noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
The definition of "accident" is not directly contingent upon cause. Negligence is the cause of the vast majority of unintentional discharges; it does not have a bearing on the definition of an accident. An accidental discharge caused by mechanical failure which the shooter could not be reasonably expected to control, or negligence: Both are accidents, with different causes.
possum
Member
the only time that i believe that there is a such thing that can be classified as accidental, is when there is a problem with the gun/ firearm and the firing was not of the fault of the shooter. i have seen this in the military. on a m240 and a m2 .50 cal. defective part/ issue with the gun and it goes off, it went off by accident and wasn't due to negligence by the shooter/ operator, then that in my mind is accidental.
similarly if someone has a slam fire, or they pull the trigger once on a semi auto firearm and it fires more than once for example they didn't mean for the gun to fire, the gun didn't slam fire due to negligence, but it did so by mechanical faliure which was an accident, and i would classify that as a "accidental discharge."
in my view, negligence is when the gun went off when it was not meant too and it is the fault of the owner/ shooter/ operator.
accidental is when it couldn't be avoided, it was due to the gun/ mechanical faliure.
similarly if someone has a slam fire, or they pull the trigger once on a semi auto firearm and it fires more than once for example they didn't mean for the gun to fire, the gun didn't slam fire due to negligence, but it did so by mechanical faliure which was an accident, and i would classify that as a "accidental discharge."
in my view, negligence is when the gun went off when it was not meant too and it is the fault of the owner/ shooter/ operator.
accidental is when it couldn't be avoided, it was due to the gun/ mechanical faliure.
ny32182
Member
Accidents can be both unintentional and caused by negligence. The vast majority of accidents, firearms related or otherwise, would in fact fall into that exact category: unintentional (a required precondition to meet the definition of "accident") *and* caused by negligence.
Words mean things folks; we don't get to arbitrarily assign meanings based on our personal fancies. No offense to anyone in particular, but there are a lot of people in this thread who need to peruse the dictionary for what these words actually mean.
possum
Member
have i ever negligently discharged a firearm or weapon of any kind? no
have i ever accidentally fired a weapon? technically i guess you could say i did, my m242 bushmaster chain gun at a brad gunnery range, the gun was on sinlge shot, i pulled the trigger, and the gun fired 3 rds.
have i ever accidentally fired a weapon? technically i guess you could say i did, my m242 bushmaster chain gun at a brad gunnery range, the gun was on sinlge shot, i pulled the trigger, and the gun fired 3 rds.
Gatorbait
member
I saw only one comment that used the term "cookoff." It's used often and in awe by those who operate really big guns that consume powder by the bagful. It can hapen as well with small arms but not as frequently (except that there are many more of them). Let's go to the deck of a carrier beset by a kamikaze attack. We're manning a dual 20mm Oerlikon, dropping in clip after clip as rapidly as we can. We hear a command through our headsets, "Alright, lads. Stop shooting." the chamber and barrel are approximately 12 trillion degrees F. In a couple of seconds BANGO! There goes the last round.
HoosierQ
Member
A distinction without a difference I think. Equally bad day regardless what you call it.
QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW
Member
accidental = it falls off a table and goes off.
negligent = you are holding it.
negligent = you are holding it.
Balog
Member
And if the gunsmith makes a mistake? What if you get it checked and a part fails later? What if the part the gunsmith correctly installed is faulty?
Still a negligent discharge...just a different party is responsible.
I like the ideas so far. All the opinions are good. I do have something I think is worth mentioning.
Picking what word to use that ACCURATELY describes what happens - no matter how 'horrible' the word is, to me, says you understand the danger and are taking the responsibility. To pick a word that protects us from the anti-gun nazi's, and makes it sound nice and fluffy, to me is sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, pretending nothing bad can happen, and leaving no one to be responsible for their actions. We can't afford that.
That sounds to me, awfully close to an attempt at being politically correct. That is something, none of us are.
I understand the argument of relating it to a traffic accident. Could be semantics, although I will mention that in Texas, the wording has changed and there are no more traffic accidents. They have been referred to as 'crashes' since about 2005/2006. To denote someone, or something had caused the crash. Some states have changed theres to 'collision' in similar format.
It reminds me about a conversation I had many years ago. Referring to someone by their color, I said ... "so&so is black" and the other party was mortified as though I had used 'the evil "N" word'. I was corrected to use the term, "African-american". Being I knew the person of subject, I responded, he's not from Africa. He's never been to Africa, he's a U.S. citizen! Charlize Theron is African-American, and she's as white as I am! The person seemed to be stunned and understood at the same time.
Likewise, with guns (and really anything) calling it what it is, is nothing to be scared of. If we have to use a horrible ugly word to help further our cause by educating and holding responsible gun handlers, then so be it. Ultimately its for the good. Yes we're going to get some black eyes over a few idiots. But this late in the game, worrying about being PC on a topic that is already labeled 'extremist' is at best laughable.
Picking what word to use that ACCURATELY describes what happens - no matter how 'horrible' the word is, to me, says you understand the danger and are taking the responsibility. To pick a word that protects us from the anti-gun nazi's, and makes it sound nice and fluffy, to me is sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, pretending nothing bad can happen, and leaving no one to be responsible for their actions. We can't afford that.
That sounds to me, awfully close to an attempt at being politically correct. That is something, none of us are.
I understand the argument of relating it to a traffic accident. Could be semantics, although I will mention that in Texas, the wording has changed and there are no more traffic accidents. They have been referred to as 'crashes' since about 2005/2006. To denote someone, or something had caused the crash. Some states have changed theres to 'collision' in similar format.
It reminds me about a conversation I had many years ago. Referring to someone by their color, I said ... "so&so is black" and the other party was mortified as though I had used 'the evil "N" word'. I was corrected to use the term, "African-american". Being I knew the person of subject, I responded, he's not from Africa. He's never been to Africa, he's a U.S. citizen! Charlize Theron is African-American, and she's as white as I am! The person seemed to be stunned and understood at the same time.
Likewise, with guns (and really anything) calling it what it is, is nothing to be scared of. If we have to use a horrible ugly word to help further our cause by educating and holding responsible gun handlers, then so be it. Ultimately its for the good. Yes we're going to get some black eyes over a few idiots. But this late in the game, worrying about being PC on a topic that is already labeled 'extremist' is at best laughable.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
