rantingredneck
Member
cmidkiff beat me to it, but I think we're on the same page there 
Any one else tired of the term ND?
- Thread starter Eric F
- Start date
- Status
(just useing this as it is the jist of general responce)
I see the use of Accidental discharge as meaning just what it says to me neglegent can only be proven by circumstances. For example you read man killed while cleaning gun. Just based on that it is an accident. Later you read that he did not clear the gun then looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger. Now that would be an Accidental discharge with neglegence.
This is true but no one says "car neglence". That particular term is just not spoken but in lawyer spake they do say "neglegent car accident."
I guess its just a case of prefrence.
I look at this as the anit crowd getting more ammunition to use against us as now if the gun fails it is evil and if we "nd" then we are evil. See what I mean they win either way but the term "accidental" takes away from neglegence and there fore could help us. Does that make sense to any one or am I incorrect?
RKBABob
Member
The term "negligent discharge" assigns blame to the user. This is a good thing. It clearly indicates that the firearm was handled improperly, and that it didn't "just go off." I wish newspapers would pick up on this term.
fletcher
Member
I'm not tired of using the term.
I am tired of hearing about them.
As must as it may be overdone, it simply cannot be stressed enough that the vast vast majority of firearms accidents are a result of negligence. It's one of the only ways we have to stress safety to owners, and show the neutral people that guns don't accidentally fire, the users either intentionally or negligently fire them.
I am tired of hearing about them.
As must as it may be overdone, it simply cannot be stressed enough that the vast vast majority of firearms accidents are a result of negligence. It's one of the only ways we have to stress safety to owners, and show the neutral people that guns don't accidentally fire, the users either intentionally or negligently fire them.
The antis will use anything against us. The big advantage, as mentioned above, is for the neutral people that hear about such incidents - it's better they get correct information instead of 100% Brady propaganda.
catfish101
Member
The thing is that bothers me is that we,as a society, are to quick to throw somebody in jail.
If there was a human involved in a situation that killed someone there was negligence to some degree. No matter that the end result was not on purpose.
There are to many people that do things on purpose that need to be in jail or in the ground really.
I get the impression that the guys and gals on the forum feel that if there is an AD or ND and the result of the unintenional act was somebody getting killed or hurt that person needs to be in jail and throw away the key.
If those people really think about what they are saying they will get a cold chill when they touch a gun the next time.
If you don't think it could happen to you because you will never break a rule with a gun....
I bet the guys that had the "AD's" on a previous thread would have said the same thing.
If there was a human involved in a situation that killed someone there was negligence to some degree. No matter that the end result was not on purpose.
There are to many people that do things on purpose that need to be in jail or in the ground really.
I get the impression that the guys and gals on the forum feel that if there is an AD or ND and the result of the unintenional act was somebody getting killed or hurt that person needs to be in jail and throw away the key.
If those people really think about what they are saying they will get a cold chill when they touch a gun the next time.
If you don't think it could happen to you because you will never break a rule with a gun....
I bet the guys that had the "AD's" on a previous thread would have said the same thing.
Superlite27
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 712
There ya' go.
If you mistakenly hit the bang switch, it WOULD be due to fault or misconduct on your part. Not an accident. Someone else hit by it would be an accidental consequence of your NEGLIGENCE.
So no. I'm not tired of using the correct terminology. It usefully distinguishes between FAULT and MISFUNCTION. Getting rid of ND just leaves the MISFUNCTION option, when the majority of "accidents" are truthfully ND's.
I do my best to detect and excise lawyerly terminology from my speech and writings.
I think that the lawyerization of our society is an evil trend and anything we can do in the realm of politics, language, or otherwise is a step in the right direction.
I find that as good a reason as any to prefer AD to ND. UD (unintentional) would be OK, I suppose.
I think that the lawyerization of our society is an evil trend and anything we can do in the realm of politics, language, or otherwise is a step in the right direction.
I find that as good a reason as any to prefer AD to ND. UD (unintentional) would be OK, I suppose.
Rather than eliminating ND and justing AD, how about we add a third one: ID for Ignorant Discharge or SD for Stupid Dishcarge?
AD = mechanical failure beyond my control
ND = I knew better, but failed to act with my knowledge
ID/SD = I didn't know squat what i was doing and the dang thing went off
Just kidding. I like ND fine.
AD = mechanical failure beyond my control
ND = I knew better, but failed to act with my knowledge
ID/SD = I didn't know squat what i was doing and the dang thing went off
Just kidding. I like ND fine.
bloodedsky
member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 166
i like ED for "ecstatic discharge."
dagger dog
Member
reading the comments in this thread has brought on the revelation that both of the "ad's" i have experienced have really been "nd's". the firearms were in my possesion and were owned by myself.
if they were defective its my fault because i did not maintain them correctly
nor did i have the ability to detect they were malfunctioning if they were.
the "anti's" will grasp onto any thread (pun not intended) to unravel the gun owners rights. it is becoming easier for them to find the end of that thread on the ball of twine that our father and fore fathers so dilligently wound. any discourse in our oganizations of gun owners rights gives them the bifocals needed to find that end .
UNITED WE STAND!
BROTHERS
if they were defective its my fault because i did not maintain them correctly
nor did i have the ability to detect they were malfunctioning if they were.
the "anti's" will grasp onto any thread (pun not intended) to unravel the gun owners rights. it is becoming easier for them to find the end of that thread on the ball of twine that our father and fore fathers so dilligently wound. any discourse in our oganizations of gun owners rights gives them the bifocals needed to find that end .
UNITED WE STAND!
BROTHERS
Joe the Redneck
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 249
Now, if you go to the Oxford English Dictionary, which really is the best one for these matter you find...
accident
• noun 1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. 2 an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause. 3 chance.
negligence
• noun 1 lack of proper care and attention. 2 Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.
Personally I think this whole thread is foolish. But if it must exist, let's use a proper dictonary.
accident
• noun 1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. 2 an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause. 3 chance.
negligence
• noun 1 lack of proper care and attention. 2 Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.
Personally I think this whole thread is foolish. But if it must exist, let's use a proper dictonary.
Blackbeard
Member
"Negligent" and "accidental" mean almost the same thing, but "negligent" assigns blame. There is a movement afoot in the culture that assigning blame to people is wrong, and that blame should rest on inanimate objects. Ever read news stories about how an SUV ran over someone? Why are they written that way? Why isn't it, "the driver ran over someone?" Because the writer's bias against SUVs shows through in the way they write the story. Blame the SUV, not the driver.
If someone gets shot in an accidental discharge, it's the gun's fault. If it's a negligent discharge, it's the shooter's fault. If it's the gun's fault, shouldn't we ban guns?
If someone gets shot in an accidental discharge, it's the gun's fault. If it's a negligent discharge, it's the shooter's fault. If it's the gun's fault, shouldn't we ban guns?
tkendrick
Member
Seems to me you guys should all get a life.
This is the second most idiotic discussion I have seen on this blog.
This first is when people argue about clips vs mags.
This is the second most idiotic discussion I have seen on this blog.
This first is when people argue about clips vs mags.
I'm tired of hearing about accidental discharges. There are no accidental discharges, they are all avoidable with proper care. Handling the weapon correctly or routine inspection of parts and ammunition will ensure there are no 'accidental' discharges.
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
+1000
Very often the report of the AD is from a third party that has a tone of arrogance like “I’m responsible and knowledgeable so this has not and could not happen to me” which is a very dangerous attitude. Anyone here who has been around guns for a long time that wants to claim they have never unintentionally violated one of the four rules needs to step back. The true reality is if you handle guns long enough you will violate one of the four rules and in reality most already have (multiple times) whether they know it or not. The human brain is not perfect and does not have a safety to stop an accident in the event the brain is convinced of something that is not true. Take the case of “sudden acceleration” of vehicles, this has been proven that the drivers had their foot on the accelerator but the brain was convinced it was on the brake, nothing can stop this from happening. If an otherwise safe handler of a firearm discharges the gun unintentionally this does NOT automatically make him negligent.
Dictionary definitions aside. The term negligent implies blatant disregard for safety not the occasional subconscious and unintentional mistake.
+1000 again
You are exactly correct.
jgorniak
Member
Sorry, doesn't float.
Negligent implies somebody wasn't paying attention. Subconscious and unintentional have no bearing on it at all. That said, I agree that I have probably violated one of the 4 rules from time to time; i.e., I was being negligent. Fortunately, nothing bad came from it.
Blatant, on the other hand, shows somebody knowingly violated the rules.
This helps me explain why to me we should only use AD.
In this case the anti crowd says ban guns because they are dangerous under rulling of "AD"
now if
Then Guns should be banned because Shooters are dangerous.this creates a 2 front battle as now both we and guns are problems where as before "ND" came about it was just guns. As I see it we only hurt our selves by adding ND into the mix. We now have to justify guns and ourselves and as a result everytime there is a "ND"(by popular terms) instead of protecting each other we throw the offender to the wolves and lions. This is a poor policy for all IMO.
this is also true and that is how it should be addressed
romma
Member
This is a funny thread.
I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on...
IMO, an accident can still be negligent in nature.
I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on...
IMO, an accident can still be negligent in nature.
GBExpat
Member
<chuckle> Ayup ... just proves for the umpteenth time that folks in online forums will argue anything to death ...
Dude1, "How do you like my new red sportscar?"
Dude2, "That's not red, it's crimson."
Dude3,"You're both wrong, that's vermillion."
... and on and on and on ...
Dude1, "How do you like my new red sportscar?"
Dude2, "That's not red, it's crimson."
Dude3,"You're both wrong, that's vermillion."
... and on and on and on ...
mountaindrew
Member
Let me use an ancedote ( not about gun, but unfortunately true)
"The other day I was swinging a hammer and I had an accident and and got hit in the face with a flying piece of metal."
Now anylize that. I used the word accident instead of negligent. Does it seem that I was blaming the Hammer? Am I not being realistic because I didn't mention my own negligence in not using something to hold the part I was striking?
No. I am using common terms to describe an event in a way that every on will clearly understand.
Why is it different with a Gun?
Another Anecdote (not true)
"The other day I was out shooting and I had an accident and got shot in the foot."
Am I blaming the gun? No. I am just using common terms. Since when is it a problem when we use normal English INSTEAD of using the most confrontational, judgmental terms we can find?
"The other day I was swinging a hammer and I had an accident and and got hit in the face with a flying piece of metal."
Now anylize that. I used the word accident instead of negligent. Does it seem that I was blaming the Hammer? Am I not being realistic because I didn't mention my own negligence in not using something to hold the part I was striking?
No. I am using common terms to describe an event in a way that every on will clearly understand.
Why is it different with a Gun?
Another Anecdote (not true)
"The other day I was out shooting and I had an accident and got shot in the foot."
Am I blaming the gun? No. I am just using common terms. Since when is it a problem when we use normal English INSTEAD of using the most confrontational, judgmental terms we can find?
frogomatic
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 522
no
I get tired of people calling a ND, and AD.
A negligent discarge is when I blew a hole in the side of my house cause I was being a dumb***, talking on the phone and playing with my new pistol. shot through a light switch, exited the house and end up in the front tire of my truck. COMPLETE AND TOTAL NEGLIGENCE ON MY PART, hence it's a ND
when the firing pin on my SKS stuck and slam-fired the magazine empty, THAT was an AD.
If you(or me) does somthing stupid and the gun goes off, that's negligence
If the gun fires due to mechanical failure that's an accident.
I get tired of people calling a ND, and AD.
A negligent discarge is when I blew a hole in the side of my house cause I was being a dumb***, talking on the phone and playing with my new pistol. shot through a light switch, exited the house and end up in the front tire of my truck. COMPLETE AND TOTAL NEGLIGENCE ON MY PART, hence it's a ND
when the firing pin on my SKS stuck and slam-fired the magazine empty, THAT was an AD.
If you(or me) does somthing stupid and the gun goes off, that's negligence
If the gun fires due to mechanical failure that's an accident.
- Status