rantingredneck
Member
cmidkiff beat me to it, but I think we're on the same page there
(just useing this as it is the jist of general responce)Using the term 'accidental discharge' places the blame on the firearm
Quote:
We don't say people were involved in a car negligence...
I would say the many civil and legal cases might prove otherwise.
Being clear about the ND/AD terminology helps our cause by pointing out that it isn't the gun's fault!!!
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.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?
Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
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
Date: 14th century
1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b: an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c: an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d—used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>
I rapidly became tired of those who insisted on trying to force "ND" down the throats of anyone who used "AD" in a scenario description.
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....
The term negligent implies blatant disregard for safety not the occasional subconscious and unintentional mistake.
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?
In this case the anti crowd says ban guns because they are dangerous under rulling of "AD"If it's the gun's fault, shouldn't we ban guns?
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.If it's a negligent discharge, it's the shooter's fault
this is also true and that is how it should be addressedIMO, an accident can still be negligent in nature.