Loosedhorse
member
ND and AD
I think all of us "get" that an ND/AD is almost always the user's fault. Similarly, if I drop and break a glass while putting it away, it was my fault--but we don't call that a "negligent."
The term "negligent," however, has a specific legal meaning: that you had a duty and did not perform that duty. After basic training, the military considers that it's the soldier's (or sailor's, etc.) duty to be in control of his weapon--as I understand it, severe penalties attach to a military ND even if no injury is done. And bravo.
I, for one, do NOT prefer to use the legal term "negligent discharge" for a civilian, non-professional AD. If we think of a typical AD (say, someone with a 1911 who prefers Condition 2 carry, and the hammer slips as he's lowering it, discharging the weapon), well, let's count the "errors" he's made:
1. Chose a 1911, which some people feel are more prone to AD than DAOs. (But others feel ther's no mistake in going 1911.)
2. Chose condition 2 carry, which in this type of gun REQUIRES you to pull the trigger on a full chamber and NOT get a discharge (But some people feel condition 2 is best for them).
3. Didn't interpose something (his other thumb) between hammer and firing pin as he lowered the hammer, or did but insufficiently to prevent discharge.
4. Let the hammer slip away from him.
I would argue that the "mistake" happened at step 2, when he chose a mode of carry that would predispose to AD; or at 3 by not having a better decocking technique. But the AD happened at step 4. Is this then an ND--or a "negligent" decision followed by an AD? Or just an AD?
ADs are our fault. If they violate (or are later decided to have violated) a legal obligation, then they are negligent. But failing such a legal finding, can't they be just accidents?
I do not think that every accident, even if it is our fault, is per se negligence. If so, by similar logic we should consider every driver who "could have" possibly avoided an accident by changing his behavior (usually driving slower) to also be negligent. This would largely remove the term "traffic accident" from our vocabulary.
None of this changes the fact that a driver involved in an accident should use that event to develop safer driving techniques, and any shooter who has an AD TO WHICH HE IN ANY WAY CONTRIBUTED must change his ways.
(A bit off-topic, I know, but a lot of disputes are caused by parties using the same word differently, so I wanted to clarify my ideas on "accident" and "negligent.")
I think all of us "get" that an ND/AD is almost always the user's fault. Similarly, if I drop and break a glass while putting it away, it was my fault--but we don't call that a "negligent."
The term "negligent," however, has a specific legal meaning: that you had a duty and did not perform that duty. After basic training, the military considers that it's the soldier's (or sailor's, etc.) duty to be in control of his weapon--as I understand it, severe penalties attach to a military ND even if no injury is done. And bravo.
I, for one, do NOT prefer to use the legal term "negligent discharge" for a civilian, non-professional AD. If we think of a typical AD (say, someone with a 1911 who prefers Condition 2 carry, and the hammer slips as he's lowering it, discharging the weapon), well, let's count the "errors" he's made:
1. Chose a 1911, which some people feel are more prone to AD than DAOs. (But others feel ther's no mistake in going 1911.)
2. Chose condition 2 carry, which in this type of gun REQUIRES you to pull the trigger on a full chamber and NOT get a discharge (But some people feel condition 2 is best for them).
3. Didn't interpose something (his other thumb) between hammer and firing pin as he lowered the hammer, or did but insufficiently to prevent discharge.
4. Let the hammer slip away from him.
I would argue that the "mistake" happened at step 2, when he chose a mode of carry that would predispose to AD; or at 3 by not having a better decocking technique. But the AD happened at step 4. Is this then an ND--or a "negligent" decision followed by an AD? Or just an AD?
ADs are our fault. If they violate (or are later decided to have violated) a legal obligation, then they are negligent. But failing such a legal finding, can't they be just accidents?
I do not think that every accident, even if it is our fault, is per se negligence. If so, by similar logic we should consider every driver who "could have" possibly avoided an accident by changing his behavior (usually driving slower) to also be negligent. This would largely remove the term "traffic accident" from our vocabulary.
None of this changes the fact that a driver involved in an accident should use that event to develop safer driving techniques, and any shooter who has an AD TO WHICH HE IN ANY WAY CONTRIBUTED must change his ways.
(A bit off-topic, I know, but a lot of disputes are caused by parties using the same word differently, so I wanted to clarify my ideas on "accident" and "negligent.")
Last edited:
