Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Accidental Discharge?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...oot/index.html


    As if Poland hasn't had it bad enough, a swabbie let loose a few rounds into the town port while cleaning the USS Ramage's M40.

    -_-

    Is it fair to consider this an act of negligence or of accident? Are they the same? How accountable should this individual be?
    Also, this article as of 220am, fails to mention if anyone was hurt, focuses way more on who is to blame, or specifically, who is NOT to blame.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Well at least the Polish can have a laugh for a change. I am waiting for my buddy from Poland to give me hell about this now...



    -Gruu

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.


  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.

    All AD=ND

    ????


    But what if it's a good guy?

    You know, a regular gun guy/patriot/pro-2A/conservative/white/Christian/Brady-hatin'/NRA trashin'/illegal alien hatin'/upstanding member of OCDO?


    I mean....we gotta take these, you know, on a case-by-case basis.....

    After all....you weren't there.....news reports can be misleading....man is innocent until proven guilty....dman antis caused the shot....

    If it's a stoopid anti (or a cop) who accidently fires a gun, OK, I agree. Definitely, AD=ND then.



    These things are not as simple as AD=ND.






  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Wear Depends for accidental discharges.

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Just did a quick search and this is the first one I found. In an ironic way, the story's wording actually seems to support MudCamper's postulate of discharge equivalency (MPODE).

    Still, the older brother was defniitely a goof with a gun. Possibly a parent, too.





    Brother accidentally shoots brother, both okay
    by KTAR Newsroom (October 30th, 2009 @ 10:12am)

    PHOENIX -- A Phoenix teenager was accidentally shot by his older brother Friday morning, police said.

    The 14-year-old boy, hit in the face, was taken to the hospital. He was expected to be okay.


    Officer Luis Samudio of Phoenix Police said the incident happened near 48th Street and Baseline Road.


    "The 20-year-old brother negligently handled the firearm, causing it to accidentally discharge," Samudio said.


    He said the older brother was taken to a precinct station for questioning after investigators got conflicting stories at the scene. It was not known who owned the gun.


    Names of the brothers were not released.


    http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1226467


  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.
    +1

    Generally, not all accidents are negligent, and not all negligence is accidental.

    However, when it comes to firearms, I believe in "strict liability". Unless there is reasonable evidence of a mechanical malfunction, none of the blame can rest anywhere but upon the person handling the firearm. Simple observation of basic firearm safety rules should preclude the possibility of any accidental discharge.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.

    All AD=ND

    ????


    But what if it's a good guy?

    You know, a regular gun guy/patriot/pro-2A/conservative/white/Christian/Brady-hatin'/NRA trashin'/illegal alien hatin'/upstanding member of OCDO?


    I mean....we gotta take these, you know, on a case-by-case basis.....

    After all....you weren't there.....news reports can be misleading....man is innocent until proven guilty....dman antis caused the shot....

    If it's a stoopid anti (or a cop) who accidently fires a gun, OK, I agree. Definitely, AD=ND then.



    These things are not as simple as AD=ND.




    First, I find your definition of a "good guy" to be insulting and ignorant.

    Second, what difference does it make whether or not a person is a good guy or not of he "accidentally" shoots somebody? He acted negligently. If you follow basic firearms safety rules, you will not have an "accidental" discharge. If you don't, you might. That is negligence. It is that simple.




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.
    +1

    Generally, not all accidents are negligent, and not all negligence is accidental.

    However, when it comes to firearms, I believe in "strict liability". Unless there is reasonable evidence of a mechanical malfunction, none of the blame can rest anywhere but upon the person handling the firearm. Simple observation of basic firearm safety rules should preclude the possibility of any accidental discharge.
    +1

    I can't count how many times I've heard "but its not loaded" from people mishandling firearms on the range. I try, sometimes with no success, to explain that it doesn't matter, safe handling rules apply at all times and at all places.

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:

    However, when it comes to firearms, I believe in "strict liability". Unless there is reasonable evidence of a mechanical malfunction, none of the blame can rest anywhere but upon the person handling the firearm. Simple observation of basic firearm safety rules should preclude the possibility of any accidental discharge.
    This gets slightly, but only slightly, more complicated with children or other incompetents getting their hands on a loaded gun. In such a case, it is not the handler who is responsible, it is the owner/keeper of the gun. The following isan example. Poor kid. I hope he makes it. And I hope the guardian or gun owner gets some jail time and loses his/her right to a firearm for 20-30 years.







    3-Year-Old California Boy Shoots Himself in Face With Handgun
    Sunday, November 01, 2009


    RIALTO, Calif. ‚ÄĒ Police say a 3-year-old Southern California boy is hospitalized in critical condition after shooting himself in the face with a handgun.

    Rialto police Sgt. Richard Royce says the boy apparently shot himself with the .22 caliber gun while his 41-year-old grandmother was caring for him.

    Royce says the woman is the boy's legal guardian.

    Royce says investigators are trying to determine how the boy got hold of the gun but he said the shooting was an accident.

    He says the bullet entered the boy's nasal cavity and the child underwent about an hour of surgery after he was taken to a hospital.

    Police would not immediately say whether any arrests or criminal charges were planned.

    Rialto is a city of nearly 100,000 people in San Bernardino County.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570950,00.html



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Laytonville, California, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    proper upbringing of a child is key

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Sionadi wrote:
    proper upbringing of a child is key
    And keeping the guns away from the kid is even more important.

    Kids cannot be negligent with guns. Only stupid adults can be negligent with guns.

    This 3-year-old would have been MUCH better off in a gun-free home....

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Laytonville, California, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    you sound like a pro gun-control guy.

    just teaching the kid about guns, how to use them properly and safely, keeping them completely in the dark about guns will just end up into these stories.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Sionadi wrote:
    you sound like a pro gun-control guy.

    just teaching the kid about guns, how to use them properly and safely, keeping them completely in the dark about guns will just end up into these stories.
    I am a pro-guns and pro-gun rights guy. You sound confused. Very confused.

    Did you read the (admittedly brief) news report? Kid shot himself in the face.

    3 year old kids don't need to be handling loaded guns. Especially alone.

    You sound....confused. Yes, that's it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Sionadi wrote:
    you sound like a pro gun-control guy.

    just teaching the kid about guns, how to use them properly and safely, keeping them completely in the dark about guns will just end up into these stories.
    I am a pro-guns and pro-gun rights guy. You sound confused. Very confused.

    Did you read the (admittedly brief) news report? Kid shot himself in the face.

    3 year old kids don't need to be handling loaded guns. Especially alone.

    You sound....confused. Yes, that's it.
    Which is exactly why they need to be taught proper gun handling from VERY early. I started teaching my grandkids from the time they could walk. The first thing it did was eliminate the curiosity factor. They know that any time they want to handle or shoot a gun, grandpa will do it with them and help them be safe.

    We started out with cap guns. As far as safe handling, they are all the same. I don't care if the gun shoots rubber darts or 50 cal, they get treated the same.



  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Sionadi wrote:
    you sound like a pro gun-control guy.

    just teaching the kid about guns, how to use them properly and safely, keeping them completely in the dark about guns will just end up into these stories.
    I am a pro-guns and pro-gun rights guy. You sound confused. Very confused.

    Did you read the (admittedly brief) news report? Kid shot himself in the face.

    3 year old kids don't need to be handling loaded guns. Especially alone.

    You sound....confused. Yes, that's it.
    Which is exactly why they need to be taught proper gun handling from VERY early. I started teaching my grandkids from the time they could walk. The first thing it did was eliminate the curiosity factor. They know that any time they want to handle or shoot a gun, grandpa will do it with them and help them be safe.

    We started out with cap guns. As far as safe handling, they are all the same. I don't care if the gun shoots rubber darts or 50 cal, they get treated the same.
    Did you ever let your kids play with a loaded gun at 3-years-old? Alone?



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Laytonville, California, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    when did i say i would let them play with it? thats what the training is for, to stop all curiosity and only use it in emergencies or if they are allowed use the gun.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    /illegal alien hatin'/upstanding member of OCDO?
    Excuse me, Hank, but some of us libertarians advocate free travel and open borders.

    Do you?

  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    /illegal alien hatin'/upstanding member of OCDO?
    Excuse me, Hank, but some of us libertarians advocate free travel and open borders.

    Do you?
    Well, I don't hate illegal aliens, if that's what you mean, marshaul....

    Whats the libertarian (or your) stance on FTand OB? What's a summary of the issues?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post



    MudCamper wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.

    All AD=ND

    ????


    But what if it's a good guy?

    You know, a regular gun guy/patriot/pro-2A/conservative/white/Christian/Brady-hatin'/NRA trashin'/illegal alien hatin'/upstanding member of OCDO?


    I mean....we gotta take these, you know, on a case-by-case basis.....

    After all....you weren't there.....news reports can be misleading....man is innocent until proven guilty....dman antis caused the shot....

    If it's a stoopid anti (or a cop) who accidently fires a gun, OK, I agree. Definitely, AD=ND then.



    These things are not as simple as AD=ND.




    First, I find your definition of a "good guy" to be insulting and ignorant.

    Second, what difference does it make whether or not a person is a good guy or not of he "accidentally" shoots somebody? He acted negligently. If you follow basic firearms safety rules, you will not have an "accidental" discharge. If you don't, you might. That is negligence. It is that simple.


    And that, ladies and gentlemen,is the bottom line.

    Ever heard of the concept of morality favoring the lucky? This incident exemplifies it. Since no one was injured, the guy involved will most likely get a slap in the wrist. If someone had been injured or worse, the guy would've faced very serious consequences. Most of us would be judging his "oversight" much more severely.

    So, is our responsibilitylargely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent onluck? If so, should it be?

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Nopal wrote:
    So, is our responsibilitylargely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent onluck?
    There is andespicable and frightening proposition in this question.

    And, I think, the answer is "yes."





    Nopal wrote:
    If so, should it be?
    No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

    By leaving it so, we guarantee more misery for some totally innocent people.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    I'm of the opinion that you own every bullet you fire. AD = ND. If you pulled the trigger then you take responsibility.
    There are lots of ways to have a legitimate AD without the N. There are a few more that fall somewhere between A and N. The validity behind the AD = ND suggestion is that most legitimate AD's involve either a gun that probably ought not to be loaded in the first place due to a state of disrepair or lack of safety in design, or the gun was super heated either by prolonged rapid fire or external exposure to a heat source. Both occurrences are quite rare these days.

    The somewhere between A and N would be things such as the the trigger snagged on something other than a finger discharges or the rapid presentation from a forward canted Serpa holster. Both are design issues that can be mitigated somewhat by the user, but still happen.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    I've had one AD, which I carefully covered (nobody was injured). It does happen. Ever dropped a hammer, or screwdriver? Miss your foot?

    **** happens, and each AD educates we dummies further, so, when we finally reach the stars, they won't shoot at us automatically. :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Nopal wrote:
    So, is our responsibilitylargely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent onluck?
    There is andespicable and frightening proposition in this question.

    And, I think, the answer is "yes."





    Nopal wrote:
    If so, should it be?
    No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

    By leaving it so, we guarantee more misery for some totally innocent people.

    Agreed and Agreed. We live in a society where the measure of morality in many things is dependent on luck. However, despicable as it may be, living in a society where luck is not allowed at all to be a determinant in our judgement of morality would also be despicable and unethical.

    It's a funny worldin whichwe live.




  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    Nopal wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Nopal wrote:
    ¬*
    So, is our responsibility¬*largely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent on¬*luck?¬*
    There is an¬*despicable and frightening proposition in this question.¬*

    And, I think, the answer is "yes."

    No, your chore is to not shoot if a round may injure humans not the target. Get with the program.

    ¬*

    ¬*

    Nopal wrote:
    ¬*
    If so, should it be?
    No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

    By leaving it so, we guarantee more misery for some totally innocent people.
    ¬*

    Agreed and Agreed.¬* We live in a society where the measure of morality in many things is dependent on luck.¬* However, despicable as it may be, living in a society where luck is not allowed at all to be a determinant in our judgement of morality would also be despicable and unethical.

    It's a funny world¬*in which¬*we live.


    ¬*

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •