Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Accidental Discharge

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Has any one had it happen?

    what went wrong?

    did you get hurt or hurt someone?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    There is no such thing as an accident with a key in the ignition or a round chambered, there is only negligence.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE". THERE ARE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES WHEN SOMEONE IS AT FAULT.




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    There is no such thing as an accident with a key in the ignition or a round chambered, there is only negligence.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE". THERE ARE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES WHEN SOMEONE IS AT FAULT.


    Sorry.

    You're wrong.

    Mechanical failures DO happen through no fault of the operator. I would define such an occurrence as an accident.

    Case in point with VIDEO PROOF.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    A mechanical failure, IMO, still isn't an accident.


    ac·ci·dent[/b]
    Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
    Function: noun[/i]
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens[/i] nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere[/i] to happen, from ad-[/i] + cadere[/i] to fall — more at chance
    Date: 14th century
    1 a[/b] :[/b] an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b[/b] :[/b] lack of intention or necessity :[/b] chance <met by accident rather than by design>2 a[/b] :[/b] an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b[/b] :[/b] an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c[/b] :[/b] an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d[/b] —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation3[/b] :[/b] a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

    From the link provided......

    "I got back out to my car, and went to chamber a round. I placed the round into the chamber (i know, it can cause wear, but I was kind of being lazy and I was sure the round was all the way in the chamber), pointing the gun in a direction that would not intercept my leg, I closed the slide with the release, and the hammer apparently followed the slide, firing the round, INTO my center console of my car! I looked down, and the casing was on the floorboard, with a distinctive hammer-hit. The hammer was stuck in the middle-catch position."

    There is the proper way to load and handle a firearm...and there is being lazy. He admitted it himself....he knew it could cause wear, but he did it anyway. How many time before this had he loaded this way, causing this wear which caused the failure?

    So, by his own words, and thru his own negligent actions, a negligent discharge. Not an accident.

    Know your firearm, maintain it properly, and don't take "shortcuts"......PERIOD!



    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post




    The 'wear' referenced pertains to the extractor, not the firing mechanism.

    By placing the round directly into the chamber, then dropping the slide, you are forcing the extractor claw straight over the rim of the cartridge, causing wear to the face of the extractor.

    Conversely, if you place a loaded magazine into the mag-well and drop the slide allowing the forward motion to strip off and chamber a cartridge, the extractor claw slides into the cartridge rim from the edge. This also requires you to remove the magazine and replace the now chambered round in order to have a full complement...ergo the 'lazy' comment.

    The drawback, however is that many times doing this even one time can over-seat the projectile in the case resulting in unsafe ammunition. I checked my own daily carry rounds after hearing this and noted five cartridges that were noticeably shorter than spec. These were promptly remove from service and my chambering routine changed to the direct chamber method.


    A mechanical failure, IMO, still isn't an accident.

    By the definition that you posted, it absolutely IS:

    ac·ci·dent
    Pronunciation: ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
    Date: 14th century
    1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity




  6. #6
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Pick it apart however you want. The event you linked was caused by his own ignorance and negligence.....period. No way to "sugar-coat it".
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  7. #7
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Most all mechanical failures happen during time of firing....locking blocks break, pins shear, in a few cases barrel failure. In all of those, they happened during the time of purposely firing the weapon.

    His failure happened during loading his firearm....negligently....lazily, HIS OWN ADMISSION, knowing it can cause wear.

    So....Unintended.....yes, Negligent....yes.

    Accident......NO!



    If you fail to properly maintain air pressure in your tires, and blow one out, is it an accident?, or is it negligence on your part to properly maintain your equipment?

    Same applies to firearms. Can mechanical failure happen even when you properly maintain your firearm....yes it can. But the example you provided was not accidental, it was negligence.


    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    If you fail to properly maintain air pressure in your tires, and blow one out, is it an accident?, or is it negligence on your part to properly maintain your equipment?

    Same applies to firearms. Can mechanical failure happen even when you properly maintain your firearm....yes it can. But the example you provided was not accidental, it was negligence.

    I'll grant your point about failure to maintain being negligence, however you are (deliberately?) overlooking one critical bit of data that I already posted:

    The system that failed (fire control group) was in no way affected by the (alleged) 'negligence' of chambering his ammunition in the manner that he did. The only wear caused by such a chambering method IS ON THE EXTRACTOR (that flat piece of metal on the side) not the firing mechanism. The extractor in no way, shape or form is connected to, or operating in conjunction with ANY part of the fire control group.

    To put it in similar terms to your tire analogy:

    If you don't keep your tire pressure up and your transmission grenades on the freeway is it an accident or negligence.


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    There is no such thing as an accident with a key in the ignition or a round chambered, there is only negligence.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE". THERE ARE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES WHEN SOMEONE IS AT FAULT.


    Sorry.

    You're wrong.

    Mechanical failures DO happen through no fault of the operator. I would define such an occurrence as an accident.

    Case in point with VIDEO PROOF.
    It is the judgmental nature of responses that keep folks from posting their stories. The key to your story is that, despite a physical malfunction causing a--let's say--unexpected discharge, no serious damage was done and there were no injuries because you were using the safety between your ears redundantly, keeping the firearm pointed in a safe direction.

    I would post a similar story of a mechanical failure that would also illustrate why we take redundant safety measures, but some of the holier-than-thous here would take the focus away from how multiple safety systems allow one to survive UDs and turn it into a bash-fest.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I spent my career directing the operation of small nuclear power plants in extreme conditions. There is no such thing as a mechanical accident, but only negligence in design, fabrication, operation, maintenance, something caused by human fault.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I spent my career directing the operation of small nuclear power plants in extreme conditions. There is no such thing as a mechanical accident, but only negligence in design, fabrication, operation, maintenance, something caused by human fault.
    True that!

    There are no Accidental Discharges... only discharges as a result of some sort of negligence on the part of some human being somewhere along the line... not necessarily the human holding the firearm at the time the discharge occurred.

    Although a Negligent Discharge would certainly be unexpected.:what:
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    I agree with Phssthpok in that the story he linked is something that could be classified as an AD provided there were no earlier warning signs that should have been seen leading up to the malfunction.


    My definitions:

    ND: A discharge that occurs unintentionally due to the operator screwing up one way or another (improper maintenance is included in this category).

    AD: A discharge that occurs unintentionally due to no fault of the operator who did everything a reasonable user would do to prevent such a discharge.


    Mechanical objects can and do malfunction without warning, even with proper maintenance. As Marlborol said, most malfunctions we see with our firearms occur when firing them. Fortunately these are times when a discharge is generally intended, and in a safe environment for them. Those can happen without warning though, so it's not impossible for them to happen outside of this either.

    I also agree with Eye95 in that autojudging everything to be an ND without considering mitigating circumstances is wrong, and detrimental. Or even judging people period. We all make mistakes, and we should be corrected for sure, especially when the stakes are as high as making a mistake with a firearm. But we also ought to hear stories of both ADs and NDs, so others may learn from the mistakes in the case of NDs, and how proper safety practices prevent injury when true ADs occur. Judgmental attitudes to not promote this.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.
    Not being judgmental at all.. just pointing out that a gun going off when it wasn't intended to go off is a result of human negligence.

    If the gun is an unsafe design even before the first prototype is made then the designer was negligent with his design.

    If the design is safe but the manufacturer uses substandard materials then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the manufacturer used quality materials but substandard quality control in assembly then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the shipper allowed damage to occur during shipping then the shipper and/or packer was negligent.

    If the seller didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling before the sale and caused damage then the seller was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling plus keeping the gun maintained/inspected for wear then the new owner was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't follow safety rules while handling the gun then the new owner was negligent.

    ........... You see... I'm not being judgmental about anyone who has experienced a ND... I am simply explaining that if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    holeinhead wrote:
    I agree with Phssthpok in that the story he linked is something that could be classified as an AD provided there were no earlier warning signs that should have been seen leading up to the malfunction.


    My definitions:

    ND: A discharge that occurs unintentionally due to the operator screwing up one way or another (improper maintenance is included in this category).

    AD: A discharge that occurs unintentionally due to no fault of the operator who did everything a reasonable user would do to prevent such a discharge.


    Mechanical objects can and do malfunction without warning, even with proper maintenance. As Marlborol said, most malfunctions we see with our firearms occur when firing them. Fortunately these are times when a discharge is generally intended, and in a safe environment for them. Those can happen without warning though, so it's not impossible for them to happen outside of this either.

    I also agree with Eye95 in that autojudging everything to be an ND without considering mitigating circumstances is wrong, and detrimental. Or even judging people period. We all make mistakes, and we should be corrected for sure, especially when the stakes are as high as making a mistake with a firearm. But we also ought to hear stories of both ADs and NDs, so others may learn from the mistakes in the case of NDs, and how proper safety practices prevent injury when true ADs occur. Judgmental attitudes to not promote this.
    Good definitions.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.
    Not being judgmental at all.. just pointing out that a gun going off when it wasn't intended to go off is a result of human negligence.

    If the gun is an unsafe design even before the first prototype is made then the designer was negligent with his design.

    If the design is safe but the manufacturer uses substandard materials then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the manufacturer used quality materials but substandard quality control in assembly then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the shipper allowed damage to occur during shipping then the shipper and/or packer was negligent.

    If the seller didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling before the sale and caused damage then the seller was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling plus keeping the gun maintained/inspected for wear then the new owner was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't follow safety rules while handling the gun then the new owner was negligent.

    ........... You see... I'm not being judgmental about anyone who has experienced a ND... I am simply explaining that if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    Classifying every UD as an ND serves no useful purpose and is insulting to the person to whom the UD happens. I think the definitions above make a distinction that needs to be made. Using those definitions, an ND means the operator needs to change the way he handles his firearm. The danger from an AD should be mitigated by routine safe handling practices.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    There has been one negligent discharge in my home within the last year. A friend of my son's was in our home one evening after we had been shooting all day and asked whether one of the rifles on a work bench was an air gun. As my son replied, "No, it's a .17 varmint rifle" the young man picked it up, ejected the loaded magazine,sighted down the barrel at the ceiling aboveand pulled the trigger, therebyputting a hole through our ceiling and roof.

    Both the boy and my son were in shock. The young man was extremely upset that he forgot to open the bolt and check the chamber whilemy son acknowledged his fault for not securing the firearms knowing a stranger was in the home. A hard lesson but at least no one was injured.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    I know there are many fans of carrying with a loaded chamber..

    but for this very reason- accidental discharge- I literally never chamber a round unless I'm pulling the trigger.

    Am I wrong or isn't that the simplest way to avoid an accidental discharge?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    It is one way which wouldconceivably limit the chances of a NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE.What happened in my home for instance, is definitely a NEGLIENCE issue, not ACCIDENTAL. My son and the other young man bothmade mistakes.

    I continue to keep one chambered in all my personal firearms without incident. My son will run his own home the way he sees fit though. He now has this event as part of his learning experienceto draw on, fortunately without a tragedy.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    I know there are many fans of carrying with a loaded chamber..

    but for this very reason- accidental discharge- I literally never chamber a round unless I'm pulling the trigger.

    Am I wrong or isn't that the simplest way to avoid an accidental discharge?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcyNKXnX2lA

    this could happen

  21. #21
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    If you fail to properly maintain air pressure in your tires, and blow one out, is it an accident?, or is it negligence on your part to properly maintain your equipment?

    Same applies to firearms. Can mechanical failure happen even when you properly maintain your firearm....yes it can. But the example you provided was not accidental, it was negligence.

    I'll grant your point about failure to maintain being negligence, however you are (deliberately?) overlooking one critical bit of data that I already posted:

    The system that failed (fire control group) was in no way affected by the (alleged) 'negligence' of chambering his ammunition in the manner that he did. The only wear caused by such a chambering method IS ON THE EXTRACTOR (that flat piece of metal on the side) not the firing mechanism. The extractor in no way, shape or form is connected to, or operating in conjunction with ANY part of the fire control group.

    To put it in similar terms to your tire analogy:

    If you don't keep your tire pressure up and your transmission grenades on the freeway is it an accident or negligence.
    That depends....when was the last time the fluid was checked?

    And a car is different than a firearm. While a car a SEVERAL moving parts, a majority of them we can't see or get to thru regular maintenance. A firearm however, has only a few moving parts. All of which, thru proper maintenance, espically after firing, get a detailed cleaning and inspection. What caused the failure to the guy in your post, most likely could have been seen thru that kind of regular maintenence. The kind of wearon the parts thatfailed would (should?) have been noticed.

    As tight as the tolerences are on semi-autos, espically in the slide assembly, excess wear on one part in that can cause other moving parts in the slide assembly to recieve excess wear. Once again, that would have been noticed thru regular, detailed maintenance.


    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.
    Not being judgmental at all.. just pointing out that a gun going off when it wasn't intended to go off is a result of human negligence.

    If the gun is an unsafe design even before the first prototype is made then the designer was negligent with his design.

    If the design is safe but the manufacturer uses substandard materials then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the manufacturer used quality materials but substandard quality control in assembly then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the shipper allowed damage to occur during shipping then the shipper and/or packer was negligent.

    If the seller didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling before the sale and caused damage then the seller was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling plus keeping the gun maintained/inspected for wear then the new owner was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't follow safety rules while handling the gun then the new owner was negligent.

    ........... You see... I'm not being judgmental about anyone who has experienced a ND... I am simply explaining that if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    Classifying every UD as an ND serves no useful purpose and is insulting to the person to whom the UD happens. I think the definitions above make a distinction that needs to be made. Using those definitions, an ND means the operator needs to change the way he handles his firearm. The danger from an AD should be mitigated by routine safe handling practices.
    I suspect some folks have a problem with the word "negligent" itself because it has the negative connotation of guilt attached.

    Insulting to the operator? Changing the name of something to protect the "feelings" of someone doesn't change the truth of it. And changing the name of something doesn't serve any useful purpose because a name change doesn't change the accountability of the one responsible.... although changing the name might make the one responsible "feel" better.

    I'll say it again.... if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    The only NDs I've had have been once when I was a teenager and shooting my 12 gauge. I was going for the safety but brushed the trigger and boom. The gun was pointed downrange but I was shook up for a couple of days. After day 3 I got mack on the horse again. The second time was at a public range and I was winding down after shooting a lot of rounds. I thought I had unloaded and pulled the trigger to drop the hammer. Same result as with the shotgun. Again this time this pistol was pointed downrange. Lesson learned. "Booger hook off the bang switch." Only 2 I've had and thankfully they were on a shooting range with the weapon pointed downrange. To this day since the last time I make it a point to keep my finger out of the trigger guard until I've decided to shoot. I even do this during paintball games.



    -Gruu

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.
    "Helpful" is a sloppy euphemism for advancing an agenda (yours). Your agenda is not mine and I have no intention of being helpful to you but of trying to put a sharp point on some of the dullards around OCDO. It is my intention to be correct, conservative and right and not nice and helpful.

    You do not need to respond or retort.



  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Judge away folks. You are not being helpful.
    Not being judgmental at all.. just pointing out that a gun going off when it wasn't intended to go off is a result of human negligence.

    If the gun is an unsafe design even before the first prototype is made then the designer was negligent with his design.

    If the design is safe but the manufacturer uses substandard materials then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the manufacturer used quality materials but substandard quality control in assembly then the manufacturer was negligent.

    If the shipper allowed damage to occur during shipping then the shipper and/or packer was negligent.

    If the seller didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling before the sale and caused damage then the seller was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't exercise due diligence in storing and handling plus keeping the gun maintained/inspected for wear then the new owner was negligent.

    If the new owner didn't follow safety rules while handling the gun then the new owner was negligent.

    ........... You see... I'm not being judgmental about anyone who has experienced a ND... I am simply explaining that if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    Classifying every UD as an ND serves no useful purpose and is insulting to the person to whom the UD happens. I think the definitions above make a distinction that needs to be made. Using those definitions, an ND means the operator needs to change the way he handles his firearm. The danger from an AD should be mitigated by routine safe handling practices.
    I suspect some folks have a problem with the word "negligent" itself because it has the negative connotation of guilt attached.

    Insulting to the operator? Changing the name of something to protect the "feelings" of someone doesn't change the truth of it. And changing the name of something doesn't serve any useful purpose because a name change doesn't change the accountability of the one responsible.... although changing the name might make the one responsible "feel" better.

    I'll say it again.... if the gun goes bang unexpectedly someone.. somewhere... was negligent in some manner. And it isn't always the person holding the gun at the time of the ND.
    I did not say anything about changing any name to protect the "feelings" of someone. That is a strawman, and I expect better from you.

    The term AD already exists and is the proper term for a discharge not caused by the negligence of the operator. ND implies negligence by the operator whether that's what you mean or not. For some on here that is precisely what they mean.

    I will continue to contend that ND is the proper term only if there is negligence on the part of the operator and that to use it in any other circumstance is despicably judgmental.

    Moving on.

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
  •