I can certainly see your point, but I would arue that there are accidental discharges (for example, those caused by mechanical failure), and negligent discharges (for example, those caused by failure to follow the four rules).srothstein wrote: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.
I consider mechanical failure to be when a properly maintained firearm fails to function as designed (for example, the sear breaks and won't hold the hammer back). The breakage can't normally be prevented by routine cleaning, nor the weak spot identified before the failure. If the firearm has been kept in such poor condition that it is damaged top the point of failure, then failure to maintain is the cause of the mechanical failure, and the discharge is more properly listed as through negligence, just as if the four rules were not followed.
I believe most accidental discharges are caused by negligent behavior, but not all are, and I think its fair to call those that are through negligence differently than those that are not.