Im glad the OP shared this thread. After reading thru it again it really doesn’t matter the nomenclature we use if we fire a round we didn’t want to fire. I also enjoyed the excellent article PAX shared, and learned here that we cant just rely only on racking the slide 3x to clear the chamber.
Negligent Discharge.
- Thread starter Jim567
- Start date
I don't think we need a long dissertation on every possible way a discharge can happen and I do rather wish folks would just call it something like a mistake and not try to invent a dozen new and different terms.
But there is one point which seems to have been missed. IF the OP left a round in the chamber, there was a failure of the gun in that the extractor failed to operate as it should. But the description of the incident sounds like the chamber was indeed empty and the round that fired was in the magazine. That is also an error, but of a different sort and one that also needs to be considered.
Jim
But there is one point which seems to have been missed. IF the OP left a round in the chamber, there was a failure of the gun in that the extractor failed to operate as it should. But the description of the incident sounds like the chamber was indeed empty and the round that fired was in the magazine. That is also an error, but of a different sort and one that also needs to be considered.
Jim
Don't get ahead of yourself.......
They're still discussing the term rather than discussing the moment(s).
1st, we MUST agree if it's called 'Soda' or 'Pop'.
Then, and ONLY then, can the discussion move to 'How to prevent getting sprayed when you open it'.
"Look at the pretty forest!'
"I cant see it... the pine tree is in the way."
"You mean the eastern white pine ?"
"That's a western white pine!"
"No, its not, its a sugar pine."
"Naw... its Ponderosa pine!"
Mean while, the topic of the pretty forest is lost.
Last edited:
Whether the discharge was accidental or negligent, it resulted in an unintentional consequence. And for our discussions we needn't quibble over nomenclature since we all know what we're referring to.
But, there are legal implications and consequences concerning the distinction between using the term Accidental Discharge or Negligent Discharge; with Negligence carrying with it more burden of responsibility for failure to exercise due care or disregarding the safety of others.
An officer returns fire at an armed robber running through a crowded mall and strikes an innocent bystander. That's more than merely accidentally shooting someone.
But, there are legal implications and consequences concerning the distinction between using the term Accidental Discharge or Negligent Discharge; with Negligence carrying with it more burden of responsibility for failure to exercise due care or disregarding the safety of others.
An officer returns fire at an armed robber running through a crowded mall and strikes an innocent bystander. That's more than merely accidentally shooting someone.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
No, the terminology is important here. Accidental simply means "unintentional." If I drink 20 shots of tequila in an hour and get into an old junker with bare tires and drive it as fast as I can down a windy mountain road, the inevitable result is unintentional and accidental; but most certainly negligent.
In the sense "accidental" is being used in this thread, it is being used to convey a kind of "act of God" quality - something that happened unintentionally despite due care because of circumstances beyond your reasonable control.
That's why I keep being a stickler on terminology. This was not an act of God and could have been prevented with due care (as the OP already bravely acknowledged). We are all human and we all make mistakes. Understanding where we failed and how we can change that is critical to improvement. Pretending that the incident cannot be controlled means we don't even try to identify where we failed. So it concerns me when I perceive people saying that due care was exercised here.
In the sense "accidental" is being used in this thread, it is being used to convey a kind of "act of God" quality - something that happened unintentionally despite due care because of circumstances beyond your reasonable control.
That's why I keep being a stickler on terminology. This was not an act of God and could have been prevented with due care (as the OP already bravely acknowledged). We are all human and we all make mistakes. Understanding where we failed and how we can change that is critical to improvement. Pretending that the incident cannot be controlled means we don't even try to identify where we failed. So it concerns me when I perceive people saying that due care was exercised here.
Well, perhaps the appropriate terminology will be used from the outset and we'll not quibble over semantics. Downing 20 shots and climbing behind the wheel of a car is a crime - intentionally committed or not and anticipated outcome is irrelevant.
As I read the OP, his perception, wrong as it might be (thus his conundrum) was that he thought he was exercising due care and doing what he thought was the right thing and in his exercising what he thought was due care eliminated negligence on his part. It surely was unintentional regardless of how it happened. I think an argument relative to accidental v negligent is one best suited for lawyers.
As I read the OP, his perception, wrong as it might be (thus his conundrum) was that he thought he was exercising due care and doing what he thought was the right thing and in his exercising what he thought was due care eliminated negligence on his part. It surely was unintentional regardless of how it happened. I think an argument relative to accidental v negligent is one best suited for lawyers.
I don't recall ever attending any training or reading in any training manual containing the term Negligent Discharge.
Sorry, while I see where negligence can be applied - connoting some culpability or reckless disregard for the safety of others - I just don't see it as some of you wish to apply it in lieu of calling it what it really is: an Accidental Discharge. Unintended and all.
Perhaps those of you in favor of us buying into the Negligent Discharge terminology replacing our usage of Accidental Discharge, can cite some recognized authority (NRA?) on the subject. Please be sure to include a definition.
Sorry, while I see where negligence can be applied - connoting some culpability or reckless disregard for the safety of others - I just don't see it as some of you wish to apply it in lieu of calling it what it really is: an Accidental Discharge. Unintended and all.
Perhaps those of you in favor of us buying into the Negligent Discharge terminology replacing our usage of Accidental Discharge, can cite some recognized authority (NRA?) on the subject. Please be sure to include a definition.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That's where I feel we are missing the "teaching moment" the OP took the courage to share with us. The OP checked the chamber but failed to identify that the chamber was not empty. The OP has already discussed several ways he feels he could improve that process (having his glasses, etc.). Some of us have added others (tactile check of the chamber).
My concern is some of the members here see this as something that can't be prevented even after the person involved is explaining ways in which they can avoid having this happen to them - and the perception that this is an unforeseeable event that cannot be prevented by due care is part of why I feel they are misding that.
I'm not saying the OP needs to be dipped in tar and hung from a gibbet for being irresponsible. Lord knows we all have had our negiligent moments in life - and because the OP had the presence of mind to keep a safe direction, minor property damage and ego were the only things hurt. But we do need to recognize where the process failed and give some thought to learning from the OP's mistake so we don't have to learn from our own - and a key part of that is recognizing a mistake was made and that it wasn't random bad luck.
armedleo the definition of negligence has already been given in this thread a couple of times. It is failure to exercise proper care in doing something. You don't need the NRA or your training manual to validate that. The firing of this round unintentionally does not mean it wasn't negligent. A chambered round was unintentionally fired when the trigger was pressed. The trigger was pressed intentionally. Was proper care taken?
Well if we're going to get all technical, no, the definition hasn't been given.
Only a paraphrased version of the definition has been given.
'Proper' isn't in the definition. If it was, most everything would be considered either negligent or an act of God.
Instead, 'reasonable' is used in the definition of negligence and negligent.
(I won't even get into the definition of Gross Negligence other than to say it doesn't have the word Proper in it either.)
If we want to get all technical on the nomenclature, we 1st need to determine if a reasonable man would think racking the slide a couple times with out a mag and looking at the chamber is enough.
Or would a reasonable man think that you should be running a bright red rod down the barrel and into the chamber and both visually see the red rod in the chamber and tactically feel the rod is what should be considered reasonable.
Then we could debate for pages and pages what 'reasonable' means and how something is deemed reasonable.
Or.... we can talk about the best ways to avoid this scenario.
The above is the definition given online by Cornell University Law School. The definition I gave was not a paraphrase. It is a direct quote from the online source connected to this app, Google I assume. We can argue about what proper care, responsible, and prudent mean, or we can agree that the discharge of a weapon due to overlooking a chambered round and intentionally pressing the trigger would not be proper care, responsible, or prudent.
Bartholomew said it well. I will give him my last word on this:
Anyone can have a bad day -- this could happen to anyone. This thread is a good reminder of that. I'm glad no one was hurt.
I was taught to always run my finger through the chamber to do a feel check in addition to a visual check. I do my best to make that a habit. I know that visual perception is a tricky thing. The human brain does one heck1 of a job of redrawing the image in our minds eye as we expect to see it rather than how it actually is.
I was taught to always run my finger through the chamber to do a feel check in addition to a visual check. I do my best to make that a habit. I know that visual perception is a tricky thing. The human brain does one heck1 of a job of redrawing the image in our minds eye as we expect to see it rather than how it actually is.
I applaud the OP for bringing this up. I learned from this thread about checking the chamber and not relying on only racking the slide and adding tactile feedback with the visual.
I also learned I don’t care what its called, if you did not intend for the round to fire then it doesn’t matter to me what its called, its a bad thing.
I also learned I don’t care what its called, if you did not intend for the round to fire then it doesn’t matter to me what its called, its a bad thing.
K Mac, thank you for educating me on the definition of negligence. I wasn't actually seeking a definition from the NRA or a training manual.
What I was curious to know is when did we replace the more conventionally recognized term of Accidental Discharge with Negligent Discharge? I just can't find the terminology among firearms literature or instructors. I've been doing this sort of thing, like investigating ADs and non-contact police shootings, for a long while now and the only people that measure (or try to measure) culpability with negligence are the prosecuting attorneys who review the case.
Most, if not all, traffic accidents are avoidable. But we don't automatically label them negligence. However, some do rise to a level of negligence, including criminal or culpable negligence. A guy obeys the speed limit while driving thru a school zone and a kid runs out and is struck. That's an accident, albeit somehow likely avoidable. Same guy, same scenario, but now he's traveling 30 in a 15 MPH school zone. That's negligence.
What I was curious to know is when did we replace the more conventionally recognized term of Accidental Discharge with Negligent Discharge? I just can't find the terminology among firearms literature or instructors. I've been doing this sort of thing, like investigating ADs and non-contact police shootings, for a long while now and the only people that measure (or try to measure) culpability with negligence are the prosecuting attorneys who review the case.
Most, if not all, traffic accidents are avoidable. But we don't automatically label them negligence. However, some do rise to a level of negligence, including criminal or culpable negligence. A guy obeys the speed limit while driving thru a school zone and a kid runs out and is struck. That's an accident, albeit somehow likely avoidable. Same guy, same scenario, but now he's traveling 30 in a 15 MPH school zone. That's negligence.
Last edited:
I don't know exactly when it happened, but I believe the original, well-intentioned push came to help gun owners understand that the vast majority of unintentional discharges are the result of negligence.
The problem that resulted is twofold:
1. There ARE some unintentional discharges which are not negligent and therefore it's inaccurate to state that all accidental/unintentional discharges are negligent.
2. The attempt to redefine words that already have well-established meanings has turned virtually any discussion about unintentional discharges into a discussion of terminology which distracts from the actual lessons learned.