Accidental Discharge?

imported post

Nopal wrote:

So, is our responsibilitylargely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent onluck?

Click to expand...

There is andespicable and frightening proposition in this question.

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





Nopal wrote:

If so, should it be?

Click to expand...

No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Shit 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

imported post

HankT wrote:

Nopal wrote:

So, is our responsibilitylargely dependent on whether or not someone gets hurt, that is, largely dependent onluck?

Click to expand...

There is andespicable and frightening proposition in this question.

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





Nopal wrote:

If so, should it be?

Click to expand...

No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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? 

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

No. It is unethical for it to be thus.

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

Click to expand...

 

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.


 

Click to expand...

imported post

My last comment was buried above - what said was don't fire if your bullets may strike humans, et cetera, that are not your target.

A quote from G. Khan, while studying how to be a Christian, during the second Crusade, while planning an western invasion.

Save your arrows. His wisdom carried on to the Indians that killed General Custer some time later.