Another day's "tragic accidents"

[jlangton]

And one hunting 'accident'.. Although, if you were investigating someone, while they were hunting, laying down in the woods near them, while they are hunting, is Probably NOT a smart idea.

I have to agree with this one.....I'd say the guy is an idiot in this case.
JL

[DoubleJ]

some of ya'll in the medical field should know the difference between Accident and Negligent.
Negligent is willfully making a conscious decision to not do something.
Accident is making a mistake.

Negligence is not checking on a patient for hours, knowing they're at a fall risk. then finding them on the floor of their room, hours later. (seen it.)
an accident is giving the wrong meds to a patient when the correct patient is in the same room, just different bed (i.e. 1407A & 1407B).

OR

Pointing what you thought was an unloaded gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and shooting them (negligent)

putting a hole in your mattress while taking apart your handgun. (accident)


in my world, negligent is criminal, whereas an accident can be learned from and forgiven.

[Excaliber]

How about calling them "negligently accidental discharges?"

On a more serious note, I can see validity to both sides of this debate.

In just about any unintentional discharge situation (with the possible exception of a mechanical failure that could not be foreseen), there is an element of negligence. We seldom have any trouble finding at least one of the 4 rules broken, and usually these events involve the violation of 2 or more of the simple standards of conduct that have been established to prevent these incidents. These lapses in the basic, responsible behavior that anyone who owns or uses firearms owes to the rest of the community are, in my opinion, clearly negligent conduct.

The argument for calling them accidental has to do with the lack of intent on the part of the shooter. This element is not always clear. When someone kills his girlfriend by pointing an "empty" gun at his girlfriend and pulling the trigger. He then tells the investigators he was cleaning the gun, didn't know it was loaded, and it was an accident. Negligence in this case is clear but lack of intent is not, and I lean toward treating such cases as homicides until proven otherwise.

I would apply the term "accident" to an intentional discharge where the shooter reasonably believed he was complying with all 4 rules, and an unforeseen circumstance caused an unintended result. Example: The shooter fires at an identified target in front of a large earth berm he has used as a backstop on many occasions. This time, the round hits a small rock concealed just below the surface of the dirt, ricochets, and strikes his shooting companion.

In the recent post where a teenager pointed his .380 at his thigh and severed his femoral artery when the gun fired, it appears he did not intend to shoot himself. I think we can legitimately say that the end result was accidental, but the behavior that led to that result was negligent. The trigger did not pull itself, and the potential for injury when one points a loaded gun at a body part and pulls the trigger is a hazard any reasonable and responsible person would foresee. Not checking the gun to see if it is loaded doesn't reduce the negligence factor.

I could accept classifying an incident like this as an "unintentional discharge due to negligent action with accidental results" if you want to put a really fine point on it, but IMHO, negligent action is clearly the cause and we shouldn't sugar coat that with terminology that lifts the burden of responsibility from the actor and allows folks to place the blame somewhere else, like on the hardware, the manufacturer, the seller, or the ammo maker.

[Keith B]

Can we add the term 'stupid' discharge and cover those accidental negligent ones??

[A-R]

Can we add the term 'stupid' discharge and cover those accidental negligent ones??

I LIKE IT!

And maybe we can make up signs, a la Bill Engvall ... "here's your sign" .... so the rest of us know to avoid these people ... I'm saying this as someone who has caused two negligent discharges in my life, luckily hurting no one - but putting quite a dent in my Kenwood stereo system about 10 years ago (if you want a ruggedly built stereo, try Kenwood, stopped a .380 round in its tracks and didn't even skip the CD that was playing .... yeah yeah, I know *insert .380 is a wimpy round joke here*)

[KD5NRH]

(if you want a ruggedly built stereo, try Kenwood, stopped a .380 round in its tracks and didn't even skip the CD that was playing .... yeah yeah, I know *insert .380 is a wimpy round joke here*)

I bet if you'd shot it with a .45ACP, the singer would have felt it.

[srothstein]

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.

[A-R]

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.

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".

The reason why I - and many others - jump when we hear the term "accidental discharge" is to emphasize - as a matter of training and conditioning - the responsibility inherent in any unintentional discharge of a firearm. It is a phenomenally important part of mental conditioning to constantly remind oneself, when around firearms, that only YOU can cause this "dangerous thing" to go bang.

I love your ocean/airplane analogy, by the way - not inherently dangerous, just terribly unforgiving of mistakes. I think I'll use that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accidental" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/accidental" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negligent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/negligent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

some of ya'll in the medical field should know the difference between Accident and Negligent.
Negligent is willfully making a conscious decision to not do something.
Accident is making a mistake.

Negligence is not checking on a patient for hours, knowing they're at a fall risk. then finding them on the floor of their room, hours later. (seen it.)
an accident is giving the wrong meds to a patient when the correct patient is in the same room, just different bed (i.e. 1407A & 1407B).

OR

Pointing what you thought was an unloaded gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and shooting them (negligent)

putting a hole in your mattress while taking apart your handgun. (accident)


in my world, negligent is criminal, whereas an accident can be learned from and forgiven.

I am in the medical field and have worked in a nursing department in a hospital. Both nursing cases you cite are negligent by your own definition. The nurse or nurses aide failed to check on the fall risk patient and they also failed to check the ID of the patient they gave the wrong meds. Also, failing to ensure the gun was empty is the cause of both of those scenarios.

Both nursing failures could be pursued legally and so could the discharge of the weapon. The one in which a hole in your mattress was the result a charge of discharging a weapon within city limits could be filed. I think this is correct. Anyone?

[srothstein]

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.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Steve R, et al:

I too like to use the correct terms for items, but fully understand what people
mean when they use something close.

Someone on the forum pointed out that you do not "load" magazines. You
"charge" them. OK. Point taken.

I believe that "loading" a weapon is when the ammo is actually chambered.

But what then is loaded? Ammo, bullets, cartridges, rounds, shells, etc.
With whatever you charge your magazine, or load your weapon with, it's
something that's going to go bang.

Also, some hate the use of the term "clip" instead of "magazine". To me the 2 seem
to be the same. I don't know the fine points that distinguishes one from the other.

[seamusTX]

Oh, no! The eternal clip versus magazine argument.

Here is how it was explained to me: The magazine is the part of the firearm that holds ammunition. It can be removable (as in most pistols) or fixed (as in most shotguns and some rifles). The clip is a device that holds a number of rounds of ammunition so that they can be inserted into a fixed magazine.

http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Liberty]

Steve R, et al:

I too like to use the correct terms for items, but fully understand what people
mean when they use something close.

Someone on the forum pointed out that you do not "load" magazines. You
"charge" them. OK. Point taken.

I believe that "loading" a weapon is when the ammo is actually chambered.

But what then is loaded? Ammo, bullets, cartridges, rounds, shells, etc.
With whatever you charge your magazine, or load your weapon with, it's
something that's going to go bang.

Also, some hate the use of the term "clip" instead of "magazine". To me the 2 seem
to be the same. I don't know the fine points that distinguishes one from the other.

At the risk of offending folks, I think the people who feel the need to correct other folks on terms like negligent discharge or 9mm clip are mostly just trying to demonstrate a superiority.
An M16/ AR15 is a gun despite what your drill sergeant claims.
You are no less of a person if you fill Glock clip with 17 rounds.
I buy my WWW bullets at Wallyworld.
Shooting your mattress accidental discharge.
Redefining words to fit political correctness is just as nasty as Orwellian newspeak or leftist PC.
Even our rebellion against calling EBR "assault weapons" I think is a little silly, The initial design of an AR15 was as an assault weapon, it seems as though the leftist have backed us into a corner and made us defensive about owning such a gun. I don't care what the Brady's or the leftist think. and I don't see why we should let them dictate the language. Maybe if we could get the public to accept that assault weapons aren't so bad, we can get them to accept the notion that automatics aren't so bad either.

At any rate I don't see why we should modify our language to make others more comfortable with our words.

[seamusTX]

Every field has specialized terms that insiders use to distinguish themselves from outsiders. Sometimes these distinctions are useful, sometimes not.

Assault weapon is not a term that was ever used in the field of firearms. As far as I know, some "gun control" advocate invented it; and it became part of the 1994 federal "Assault Weapons Ban."

If someone hits another person over the head with a rock, isn't that an assault weapon?

- Jim

[mr.72]

If someone hits another person over the head with a rock, isn't that an assault weapon?

Getting quite off-topic for this particular thread... I don't know the history of the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" but I can only assume that it is applied to distinguish weapons that are not either intended for hunting or target use. I am curious to know exactly what the history is, however. However, the term "assault" is in fact a technical, legal term used to describe a criminal act. So it is quite incorrect to refer to what I would call defensive arms as "assault weapons".

You are right, Jim. if I assault you using a rock, then the rock is in fact my assault weapon. If I assault you using a 30/30 lever gun, then my trusty Marlin may become an "assault rifle". But if you go hunting hogs with an AK-47 then that is a "hunting rifle" and if I like to shoot targets with my Ruger LCP then that teeny gun becomes a "target pistol".

The whole concept of the use of the word "assault" to refer to guns is to give the connotation that these guns are only used in the commission of a crime, or to impart a passive criminal intent to the owners of such guns. Your pappy's Remington 700 is a hunting rifle, your gandma's S&W .38 is a self-defense gun, but your AR15 clearly makes you a potential criminal because it's an "assault rifle".