TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:Steve, it is my understanding you are an attorney, correct? If you're not, please do not take offense at me labeling you as such I am a former journalist, so words are important to me. And the precise meaning of each word is extremely important in a legal sense, correct?

Well, the words accidental and negligent are simply not synonymous (see links below to definitions and synonyms). As such, they connote two distinctly different meanings. The term auto accident is no more correct that gun accident. While some form of imprecise popular understanding that the term "accident" could imply negligence may be true, it still does not mean the same thing as "negligent". The term "accident" does not imply blame of any kind - only intent ... a synonym for "accidental" is "unintentional". The term "negligent" can also imply intent (or lack thereof), but it goes further and assigns blame and even the cause of that blame "carelessness".

Well, I am not offended, but I am a cop, not a lawyer. I do understand what you mean by the meanings of words, and I agree that in many cases, it is very important to be precise. Some of my pet peeves include the improper use of terms that do have specific meanings (I really hate hearing about houses being robbed).

And I can understand how this could grate on someone's nerves if they believe the two terms are so different as for one to be incorrect. I do not agree that the two terms are so different, because negligent assigns blame but it clearly also says there was no intent. Maybe because of my background, but I think most people do not connote a lack of blame with the term accident. Too many people will apologize after saying something was an accident for this to be true. Anyone who has been driving for more than the past ten years also understands that all accidents are still caused by negligence.

But even if I am wrong (and I am somewhat surprised that the two thesaurus entries did not include each other based on how far out they usually get), there is also another factor to consider.

Communication is the key. In a courtroom, I would never say a house was robbed, I would use the proper term burglarized. But we are not in a forum that requires precise terms. Here, communication is complete when both the reader and the poster understand the concept being transmitted. And we all do understand this, no matter which term is used. So, if we both understand what is being said, why insist on the proper term so much? In a class room situation, definitely do so. In a courtroom, do so. But when friends are just talking,we all misuse terms or have different terms for the same thing. As long as we understand each other, we can just let the term stand.

austinrealtor wrote:There is no such thing as a gun "accident". Because guns - in and of themselves - are not the inherently dangerous inanimate objects that the media and liberal fear-mongers want everyone to believe.

This is really my point. I agree with you 100% that guns are inanimate objects and do not kill people. There is an old quote about airplanes (where I heard it) that applies to guns also. Aviation (or firearms) is like the sea. It (or they) is not inherently dangerous, just terribly unforgiving of mistakes.

But where did the fairly recent concept that the term accident moves the blame away from the operator come from. We all called them car accidents for years, and I would bet most of us still do. How many parents out there still worry about the phone call from their young newly licensed child calling that they were involved in an accident? And we all know that there must be an operator for the car to have an accident. Parked cars do not move on their own and do not have accidents. Guns do not shoot on their own and do not have accidental discharges. Obviously, both general rules have exceptions for maintenance and design defects (guns that have floating firing pins for example or cars with bad transmissions that jump out of park).

If we can still refer to a car accident and everyone knows it means someone was at fault, we can still refer to a gun firing as an accidental discharge and know someone was at fault (negligent).

Of course, my real complaint is not even calling them negligent discharges, but the group that jump when someone else calls them accidental. If I say accidental and you know what I mean, why all the worry about the term used? Communication is complete and we both had the same understanding.

Yes, it certainly does. And they certainly are negligent discharges also.

But, I do not see why we cannot call them accidental since it also allows for negligence. The constant post that they are not accidental but negligent is my complaint of our own version of political correctness.

Mike from Texas wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:The words "accident" or "accidental" are almost right in many cases, as they imply an occurance that is unintentional, unfortunate, and unforeseen. However they also imply an occurance happening by chance and without fault, which not correct about any "accidental" shooting I've ever heard/read.

I agree 100%.

I personally disagree. I have seen this point debated in the AD/ND frame of reference and in the car crash frame also. In both cases, I strongly disagree and see no implication of chance or without fault. I have always thought an accident was something that happened unintentionally, though i will also stipulate to the unfortunate and unforeseen parts of the definition above.

But, for about 30 years I have been asked to list the causes of vehicle accidents I investigated and determine who was at fault. I have not yet written one, but the DPS troopers did write tickets for negligent collision at accident scenes. We all grew up knowing that at any car accident, someone would be found at fault and have to pay for their negligence.

Yet, a couple years ago the state changed the name of the form from an accident report to a crash report because they claimed the word accident implied no fault and there are people doing the same thing with the unintentional discharge of a firearm.

This strikes me as just being more political correctness and I decline to go along. I still call them car accidents and I still call them accidental discharges. In no way do I think they are unavoidable or not caused by negligence. I simply think they are the unintentional results of someone's actions.