Guns are, by nature, designed to fire a projectile (or several projectiles). This is the primary focus of any firearm design. Occasionally, in the process of making an object that fires these projectiles, some design flaws are made along the way. Some may argue that an "unstable" firing pin on a shotgun is a design flaw. Some may argue that making a gun that fires shot instead of bullets a design flaw.
The issue at hand (of whether or not it was negligence or accident that caused the event) hinges on determining who was in control of the situation.
Fact: the Seaman did NOT have control of the ocean, nor the sudden violent movement of the ship.
Fact: The Shotgun does have a design attribute that can make the firing pin strike inside the chamber if jostled sufficiently.
Fact: If there is a shell in the chamber of the Mossberg when the firing pin strikes inside the chamber, it would be faithful to its design that the shell would discharge.
Fact: The Seaman did NOT have control over the design of the shotgun (since all military branches prevent servicemembers from altering the design of issues firearms).
Fact: The Seaman DID have control over handling a firearm with a chambered shell (this is assuming that carrying the Mossberg with a chambered shell is against SOP for his unit).
Conclusion: It is the seaman's fault for having a round chambered (if it is, in fact, against safety SOP).
It is also the "fault" of the waves on the ocean, seeing as no one can predict of control it, and if it had not happened, the jostling never would have occurred, and thus, no discharge.
It may also be considered the fault of Mossberg for designing the weapon this way, however, if Mossberg claims that this was an INTENTIONAL design, then it is up to the one buying/handling the firearm to know the capabilities of what he/she uses.
In layman's terms, the guy could have avoided the discharge if had observed safer practices, but if it's not against safety SOP to have a shell chambered, then it is purely and simply an accident, and the Navy simply needs to revise their safety procedures.
The issue at hand (of whether or not it was negligence or accident that caused the event) hinges on determining who was in control of the situation.
Fact: the Seaman did NOT have control of the ocean, nor the sudden violent movement of the ship.
Fact: The Shotgun does have a design attribute that can make the firing pin strike inside the chamber if jostled sufficiently.
Fact: If there is a shell in the chamber of the Mossberg when the firing pin strikes inside the chamber, it would be faithful to its design that the shell would discharge.
Fact: The Seaman did NOT have control over the design of the shotgun (since all military branches prevent servicemembers from altering the design of issues firearms).
Fact: The Seaman DID have control over handling a firearm with a chambered shell (this is assuming that carrying the Mossberg with a chambered shell is against SOP for his unit).
Conclusion: It is the seaman's fault for having a round chambered (if it is, in fact, against safety SOP).
It is also the "fault" of the waves on the ocean, seeing as no one can predict of control it, and if it had not happened, the jostling never would have occurred, and thus, no discharge.
It may also be considered the fault of Mossberg for designing the weapon this way, however, if Mossberg claims that this was an INTENTIONAL design, then it is up to the one buying/handling the firearm to know the capabilities of what he/she uses.
In layman's terms, the guy could have avoided the discharge if had observed safer practices, but if it's not against safety SOP to have a shell chambered, then it is purely and simply an accident, and the Navy simply needs to revise their safety procedures.