TexasCHLforum.com

I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

Please, please reference the post that does that.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

Please, please reference the post that does that.

I think you may have misunderstood something you read. I don't see any posts suggesting what you just said Tic Tac.

anygunanywhere wrote:The safety philosophy of my employer is that all accidents are preventable. This all encompassing philosophy covers a lot of responsibility from all engineering and operations disciplines.

Even though all accidents are preventable not all accident causes are negligent.

Some causes can and do get attributed to unsafe conditions but the majority are a result of unsafe behaviors.

Most accidents can be traced back to multiple causes and/or behaviors that contribute to the event. In almost all cases, if only one of the unsafe behaviors or conditions had been removed or corrected the accident would never have happened.

For the most part, we as a group are reasonable people and strive to be accident free because our chosen passion can very easily lead to serious injury and death if we do not stay vigilant.

Anygunanywhere

THis is definitely true. Most of the time, accidents happen because of a combination of things. Often, most of those things were done all the time with no consequences for years before they all stacked up together to produce the accident.

That said, there are things we as gun owners can do to minimize accidents and we need to be as vigilant as possible to adhere to those safety rules.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

Please, please reference the post that does that.

I think you may have misunderstood something you read. I don't see any posts suggesting what you just said Tic Tac.

I think he may be talking about the examples of accident versus negligence posted by Charles. At least, that is my guess.

Edited to add: I had forgotten that the OP was about a legislator. Oops!

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

What in the world are you talking about?

MechAg94 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The safety philosophy of my employer is that all accidents are preventable. This all encompassing philosophy covers a lot of responsibility from all engineering and operations disciplines.

Even though all accidents are preventable not all accident causes are negligent.

Some causes can and do get attributed to unsafe conditions but the majority are a result of unsafe behaviors.

Most accidents can be traced back to multiple causes and/or behaviors that contribute to the event. In almost all cases, if only one of the unsafe behaviors or conditions had been removed or corrected the accident would never have happened.

For the most part, we as a group are reasonable people and strive to be accident free because our chosen passion can very easily lead to serious injury and death if we do not stay vigilant.

Anygunanywhere

THis is definitely true. Most of the time, accidents happen because of a combination of things. Often, most of those things were done all the time with no consequences for years before they all stacked up together to produce the accident.

That said, there are things we as gun owners can do to minimize accidents and we need to be as vigilant as possible to adhere to those safety rules.

I agree with both of your comments and observations, but would like to make some additional comments. I have been involved in reviewing many safety incidents.

IMO, the investigation should be focused in determining the root causes of the accident so that they can be eliminated by some type of corrective action so they do not reoccur. The probable that I see is that too many people want to jump to a conclusion and point blame - usually at the operator - the lowest guy on the totem pole. Then they say "Train the operator" and that is the end of it.

The investigation must go beyond the direct cause to get to the root cause. For example "The operator turned the wrong switch" may be the direct cause of an accident, but it is not the root cause. You have to keep asking why did this happen until you dig down deep enough. As both of you stated most accidents happen because of a combination of things going wrong. That is why it is essential to find as many root causes as possible so they can be eliminated. I know I am preaching to the choir, but I hope to give some of the people reading this some more insight.

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

I presume you are talking about the Kentucky legislator who had the unintended discharge noted in the OP's post. If so, I haven't seen anyone take the position that "it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns." My position is that not all unintended discharges rise to the level of negligence. That's a far cry from saying carelessness is acceptable.

Chas.

WildBill wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The safety philosophy of my employer is that all accidents are preventable. This all encompassing philosophy covers a lot of responsibility from all engineering and operations disciplines.

Even though all accidents are preventable not all accident causes are negligent.

Some causes can and do get attributed to unsafe conditions but the majority are a result of unsafe behaviors.

Most accidents can be traced back to multiple causes and/or behaviors that contribute to the event. In almost all cases, if only one of the unsafe behaviors or conditions had been removed or corrected the accident would never have happened.

For the most part, we as a group are reasonable people and strive to be accident free because our chosen passion can very easily lead to serious injury and death if we do not stay vigilant.

Anygunanywhere

THis is definitely true. Most of the time, accidents happen because of a combination of things. Often, most of those things were done all the time with no consequences for years before they all stacked up together to produce the accident.

That said, there are things we as gun owners can do to minimize accidents and we need to be as vigilant as possible to adhere to those safety rules.

I agree with both of your comments and observations, but would like to make some additional comments. I have been involved in reviewing many safety incidents.

IMO, the investigation should be focused in determining the root causes of the accident so that they can be eliminated by some type of corrective action so they do not reoccur. The probable that I see is that too many people want to jump to a conclusion and point blame - usually at the operator - the lowest guy on the totem pole. Then they say "Train the operator" and that is the end of it.

The investigation must go beyond the direct cause to get to the root cause. For example "The operator turned the wrong switch" may be the direct cause of an accident, but it is not the root cause. You have to keep asking why did this happen until you dig down deep enough. As both of you stated most accidents happen because of a combination of things going wrong. That is why it is essential to find as many root causes as possible so they can be eliminated. I know I am preaching to the choir, but I hope to give some of the people reading this some more insight.

We investigate under the assumption that it is never "operator error". Root causes can nearly always be uncovered because even if an operator makes a misake, the mistake can be traced back to some other failure.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:We investigate under the assumption that it is never "operator error". Root causes can nearly always be uncovered because even if an operator makes a misake, the mistake can be traced back to some other failure. Anygunanywhere

We had one client tell us if we ever sent in a corrective action report where the root cause was "operator error" they would automatically reject the report and send it back to us.

Shoot Straight wrote:

WildBill wrote:Blame is not the same as negligence.

So true. People are also usually to blame when they do something intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Back to the subject of accidental discharges, when NTSB calls most crashes "accidents" instead of "pilot error" I'm willing to reconsider my choice of words. Until then, all I can say is good luck avoiding accidents!

I know a person that was a bus driver and if a driver got rear ended it was almost always a chargeable accident by the company. Note I said by the company, not the law.

ldj1002 wrote:

Shoot Straight wrote:

WildBill wrote:Blame is not the same as negligence.

So true. People are also usually to blame when they do something intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Back to the subject of accidental discharges, when NTSB calls most crashes "accidents" instead of "pilot error" I'm willing to reconsider my choice of words. Until then, all I can say is good luck avoiding accidents!

I know a person that was a bus driver and if a driver got rear ended it was almost always a chargeable accident by the company. Note I said by the company, not the law.

Back in the stone ages, in California, if a driver rear-ended another vehicle, they were always at fault. That was the law. It has since changed.

It will always be negligence of the 4 rules of firearms safety.

Thereby, negligence.

ldj1002 wrote:

Shoot Straight wrote:

WildBill wrote:Blame is not the same as negligence.

So true. People are also usually to blame when they do something intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Back to the subject of accidental discharges, when NTSB calls most crashes "accidents" instead of "pilot error" I'm willing to reconsider my choice of words. Until then, all I can say is good luck avoiding accidents!

I know a person that was a bus driver and if a driver got rear ended it was almost always a chargeable accident by the company. Note I said by the company, not the law.

To some companies, it is easier to find fault with a driver and fire them rather than spend money to fix an issue.

APynckel wrote:It will always be negligence of the 4 rules of firearms safety.

Thereby, negligence.

Where would you find negligence cases where the operator did everything right and the gun did not function as designed?

An example would be a slam fire like those that occurred in a few cases with the Springfield XDs before the recall when the gun was pointed in a safe direction and no one was injured? .