I think I'm going to start an argument...AD vs ND

[200Apples]

My experience is that people tend to characterize things as "accidents" as it's easier than accepting the desirability of, and practicing, RESPONSIBLE behavior.

I agree. The Four Rules:

1. (Act as if - ) All guns are always loaded
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target
4. Know your target and what is behind it

[tawadc95]

Pretty well written, the use of accidental is a coverup in most cases to me as well.

[rudigan]

It's Sunday and I'm drinking my coffee before chores. And I would argue the majority of threads on CalGuns are largely inconsequential to many people.

^^^
Oh my yes, WTH/WTF/Why?, is what comes to mind on like 90% or more of them

[boattail]

I had a dream I was in the Army again and I woke up this morning with my discharge in my hand.

[bb557]

Hopefully this will be more of a discussion.

Over 30+ years of carrying firearms on a daily basis I have seen these terms swap places, and in some respects for good effect I think. The current craze of labeling everything a Negligent Discharge, or ND, unless it was a weapon malfunction, is I think missing the forest for the trees. Now I am not going to argue that negligence is not the cause of most, maybe all, unintentional discharges. It is. But arguing accidental vs negligent is conflating two different concepts. Those are intention vs responsibility.

Accidental, or unintentional, simply means that the result was not intended. It does not mean the person that caused the accident bears no responsibility or was not negligent. Dictionary.com Accident: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss. Accident does NOT mean there was no negligence. Dictionary.com Negligent: guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty.

In fact, negligent is a legal term and you can have a negligent, but intentional discharge. If you are at the range and someone picks up their firearms and intentionally fires downrange while people are posting targets, then that is negligent and intentional. However if they pick up their firearm intending to put it in the case without intending to fire and due to poor finger placement fire a round, that is both unintentional (accidental) and negligent.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/accidental-firearm-discharge-lawyers.html

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/negligent-discharge-vs-unintentional-discharge/

If anyone is thinking of responding with "If you put your finger on the trigger and it goes off you were negligent it wasn't an accident." It can be both and I argue in most cases it is. These are two different words to describe two different concepts. If I describe a shooting as "accidental" that does not mean it was not negligent. In fact, I would argue we could put all discharges of a firearm into one of four categories:

Unintentional and Negligent - Example: Cleaning a firearm and failing to clear the chamber before pulling the trigger on a Glock, etc. The user did not intend to fire the firearm but was negligent in failing to properly clear it.

Unintentional and Non-Negligent - A weapon malfunction that results in a discharge which is not the fault of the user.

Intentional and Negligent - Firing while people are downrange who are not valid targets. The user intended to fire the weapon, and was negligent in how or where it was done.

Intentional and Non-Negligent - Firing in a safe direction on a range, etc. A valid defensive use of a firearm would fall into this category.

Now I do understand what people are trying to do by using the term "negligent", they are trying to not let people off the hook by thinking it was not preventable. But I also think it oversimplifies the issue, and confuses two concepts that are related int his context but different. It also misuses the term "negligence" which is important legally, and is not synonymous with the way it is commonly being used in the firearms community.

Ok, my rant if you would like to call it that is over. I look forward to hearing cogent discussion on the topic, but fully expect some anger over challenging what seems to be "common knowledge" in our community.

This post simultaneously takes parsing language, intentionally misinterpreting and generally **it stirring to Olympian heights. In a microcosm, this what makes this site so much fun.

[The Gleam]

It's not about after the fact for what you call it, it's about what you didn't do to prevent the incident whether the result was accidental or not.

No, you didn't intend for it to happen, but your negligence ALLOWED and INVITED it to happen.

The accident could have been prevented if you were not negligent in your handling of a firearm.

And this is where the Anti-2nd Amendment media have been conflating the issues and terms to suit themselves, calling plenty of avoidable and unfortunate firearm incidents that arose out of negligence as merely "accidents" as it helps them to put the blame on guns and not human error. They can ban guns, but they can't ban humans, so to stop accidents, they can ban guns - see how that works?

The media and disarmament crowd would love nothing more than for you to start calling out unfavorable consequences that arise out of idiotic negligence as merely unavoidable "accidents" so they can seek lawsuits against gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers, because there should have been a safety widget/cap/lever/internal-lock/bio-metric smart-lock/RFID-chip reader to a wrist-watch, etc., installed.

Calling such irresponsible acts negligent also lays down a guilty conscience about such incidents BEFORE they happen, and hopefully makes someone so self-conscience to avoid being negligent in their actions, that they are so meticulous, so methodical, it DOESN'T happen - you know, like someone being killed or something else of great value ruined - (and yes, they ARE irresponsible, whether you want to call it negligent or accident.)

In essence, an "accident" can be prevented if you remain vigilant to not be negligent in your actions with, and in the handling of, firearms.

If an accident happened - you were negligent in your actions.

Don't be a negligent dolt; the life you save just might be your own.

[JCHavasu]

This post simultaneously takes parsing language, intentionally misinterpreting and generally **it stirring to Olympian heights. In a microcosm, this what makes this site so much fun.

Ah, thanks...I think.

Don't be a negligent dolt; the life you save just might be your own.

Quoted for absolute truth.

[hambam105]

Automobile Crashes or Automobile Accidents?

[bigmike82]

"No, you didn't intend for it to happen, but your negligence ALLOWED and INVITED it to happen."

This, in a nutshell.

I think people should emphasize the ND piece when the person did something stupid. For example, discharging your firearm while dropping the hammer using the trigger is negligent. There's a billion ways to prevent that.

However, if your duty or CCW weapon falls out of the holster, or you just butterfinger it, and it discharges on impact with the floor, that's an accident. Like you said, it comes down to intent; not the intent for the *result* of the action, but the intent of the action itself.

[A-J]

I've never been a fan of the term accident, either in firearm discharges or the automotive type. Simply because the term implies that there was no way to prevent the incident form occurring, which is false in probably 90% or more of the instances of both.

[JCHavasu]

I've never been a fan of the term accident, either in firearm discharges or the automotive type. Simply because the term implies that there was no way to prevent the incident form occurring, which is false in probably 90% or more of the instances of both.

And I agree that is the point people are going for with using "negligent" for everything. I disagree that it "implies" that it was not preventable though. The term "accident" only means unintended not unpreventable. If I fall off of a ladder because I stood on the very top step it was absolutely an accident, which was caused by me being a bonehead (negligent).

[JCHavasu]

Automobile Crashes or Automobile Accidents?

I always used those terms interchangeable along with collision. If an automobile accident was intentional then we would call it assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

[IVC]

This is actually a good subject, not sure why the OP is catching flak...

The question of intent is a valid question, but it cannot be addressed by playing word games. If you attribute too much implied meaning to the word "accident," you'll end up with two camps: camp 1 will notice the implied lack of responsibility when using the word "accident," while camp 2 will see the lack of intent as implicitly being covered by the word "accident."

I like to appease the blowhards on both sides by allowing whatever interpretation they prefer. If someone insists that any non-mechanical unintentional discharge is "negligent," that's fine - it's just a matter of interpretation of the word. If someone else insists that it was "accidental" because there was no intent, that's fine too.

What matters is that the training (and knowledge in general) are there to make shooting sports safer. Humans are not perfect (far from it), so we have layers of safety measures and established protocols. Break a rule here and there unintentionally and learn from the experience without getting maimed or killed. That's how it's been working for quite some time, not just with shooting, but with any other potentially dangerous activity...

[JCHavasu]

This is actually a good subject, not sure why the OP is catching flak...

The question of intent is a valid question, but it cannot be addressed by playing word games. If you attribute too much implied meaning to the word "accident," you'll end up with two camps: camp 1 will notice the implied lack of responsibility when using the word "accident," while camp 2 will see the lack of intent as implicitly being covered by the word "accident."

I like to appease the blowhards on both sides by allowing whatever interpretation they prefer. If someone insists that any non-mechanical unintentional discharge is "negligent," that's fine - it's just a matter of interpretation of the word. If someone else insists that it was "accidental" because there was no intent, that's fine too.

What matters is that the training (and knowledge in general) are there to make shooting sports safer. Humans are not perfect (far from it), so we have layers of safety measures and established protocols. Break a rule here and there unintentionally and learn from the experience without getting maimed or killed. That's how it's been working for quite some time, not just with shooting, but with any other potentially dangerous activity...

Ah, yes. And you actually get to my point in starting this thread. I have likely, and not necessarily inappropriately, been categorized as a blowhard from the second camp. What frustrates me is the automatic, "There is no such thing as an accidental discharge" response from many when someone uses the term. I tend to use them interchangeably but when I use the term "accidental" it does not in any way mean non-negligent by itself. It just means unintentional.

Thanks for the addition to the discussion.

[hambam105]

Safe to call it a 'crash' when just one of the drivers was doing something unsafe. Such drinking-texting-speeding yada yada.