They tell you that it's RULE #1.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
is there any such thing as accidental spilling of coffee or do you call it negligent cup handling?
Click to expand...

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".
 
Terrible lapses - yes. I think this tape gets such outrage because it is a woman. Flame on!
Click to expand...

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! :)
 
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Four Rules, Baby

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.
 
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.
 
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
Click to expand...
: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.
 
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:
 
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!
 
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.
 
First, I have to agree with Blues there. You have incorrectly applied the word.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Good to know here. When you are aligned against the world, always blame the world. Thanks.
 
By the way, thought I would show you the world:

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.p...=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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Whether anyone agrees with me or not is irrelevant. The officer's actions on the video were both negligent and an accident.
 
My 2 cents worth...

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
 
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

that's pretty much the point I've been trying to make
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
  • Poll
Are Rules Rules?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
4K
Sam1911
S
K
  • Locked
The 4 Safety Rules
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
GunWares
G
B
  • Locked
The "Four Rules"
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
6K
Walkalong
Walkalong
O
  • Locked
Should rule two be revised or reworded?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
180
Views
8K
Kleanbore
K
B
  • Locked
Let's settle this: Dry firing -- worth breaking the rules?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
P95Carry
P
Back
Top