TexasCHLforum.com

bronco78 wrote:It's a frame of mind as well as semantics...

I think the "frame of mind" on the forum may be skewed compared to the general public. Most of us [CHL Forum members] are very careful with firearms and try to follow the safety rules 100% of the time. So I think that we tend to be overly critical of the people who don't have the same frame of mind that we have.

My only point was to show that your interpretation/definition of the word accident and the common usage of the word accident differ. That's all, no more. No different than two drunk drivers colliding head-on. It would still be initially reported/called an "accident" even though gross negligence was the cause. The legal outcomes do not change the common usage of the word.

G26ster wrote:My only point was to show that your interpretation/definition of the word accident and the common usage of the word accident differ. That's all, no more. No different than two drunk drivers colliding head-on. It would still be initially reported/called an "accident" even though gross negligence was the cause. The legal outcomes do not change the common usage of the word.

I have noticed that the term "car accident" is seldom used by LEOs and insurance agents any more. They call them crashes or collisions.

WildBill wrote:

bronco78 wrote:It's a frame of mind as well as semantics...

I think the "frame of mind" on the forum may be skewed compared to the general public. Most of us [CHL Forum members] are very careful with firearms and try to follow the safety rules 100% of the time. So I think that we tend to be overly critical of the people who don't have the same frame of mind that we have.

We should keep in mind that those folks who are receiving the critical comments here weren't chosen at random. They are individuals whose poor knowledge of or attention to the basic requirements for safely using firearms got them the bad and sometimes tragic results that good safety practices are designed to prevent.

I agree that the comments are critical, but they are deservedly so, and we ourselves would receive and deserve the same if we earned them the same way.

Teamless wrote:What was the D-I-L doing with the husband taking the gun outside?

This just seems way to strange to me

I'd like to see the results of gunshot residue tests on all 3 folks present to better understand what really happened, which I seriously doubt is anywhere close to the story presented to responding officers.

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

bronco78 wrote:It's a frame of mind as well as semantics...

I think the "frame of mind" on the forum may be skewed compared to the general public. Most of us [CHL Forum members] are very careful with firearms and try to follow the safety rules 100% of the time. So I think that we tend to be overly critical of the people who don't have the same frame of mind that we have.

We should keep in mind that those folks who are receiving the critical comments here weren't chosen at random. They are individuals whose poor knowledge of or attention to the basic requirements for safely using firearms got them the bad and sometimes tragic results that good safety practices are designed to prevent.

I agree that the comments are critical, but they are deservedly so, and we ourselves would receive and deserve the same if we earned them the same way.

They are folks who's actions got news coverage, which are probably a small sample of all incidents involving firearms. This is a case where most everyone agrees that the shooting is suspicous and all of the facts are not known. My peeve is that some forum members call every unintentional discharge negligent and refuse to concide that there are actually accidental discharges. That's all I have to say about that.

I'm a product of my environment.
From APR 2011 to MAR 2012 I personally reviewed more the 900 unintentional weapon discharges..556mm to 2.75 rocket, to Hellfire missile.
From a group of 36,000 plus trained folks.... Training ranged from basic (well above your intro NRA course of instruction, many hours of initial instruction, biannual instruction and use, and many safety classes in between) to operator level.

Not one, not a single one was "accidental" all involved negligence.

In the preceding 26 years, my experience leads me to the same conclusion.


Im not saying Im right, only that, my experience leads me to only one logical conclusion.

bronco78 wrote:I'm a product of my environment.
From APR 2011 to MAR 2012 I personally reviewed more the 900 unintentional weapon discharges..556mm to 2.75 rocket, to Hellfire missile.
From a group of 36,000 plus trained folks.... Training ranged from basic (well above your intro NRA course of instruction, many hours of initial instruction, biannual instruction and use, and many safety classes in between) to operator level.

Not one, not a single one was "accidental" all involved negligence.

In the preceding 26 years, my experience leads me to the same conclusion.


Im not saying Im right, only that, my experience leads me to only one logical conclusion.

This post gives me a better understanding of your previous posts.

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:My pet peeve is calling these kind of situations an "accident". It is either "negligent" or a "homicide", but it surely is not an "accident".

I understand why you are saying this, but I still disagree. At this point I don't think that are enough facts to determine negligence.

Yes, I believe there are enough facts.

Of course, I am also of the opinion that 99.99% of firearm incidents that are labeled "accidents" are more properly term "negligent". The 0.01% that are true accidents are most commonly attributable to actual mechanical failure without any human actions.

As for the negligent 99.9%, it gets right back to Cooper's Four Rules. From "Jeff Cooper's Commentaries" by Jeff Cooper, Vol. 11, No. 4, April 2003:

We hoped by this time that the standard rules of safe gunhandling would have become universal throughout the world. They have been arrived at by careful consideration over the years, and they do not need modification or addition. We trust that all the family have them by heart in all languages, but for those who came in late here they are again:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Those will do. We need all four and we do not need five. It should not be necessary to belabor this issue, but life is not perfect.

If that muzzle had not been pointing at the man, he would not have been shot. Violation of safety rules makes it negligent. Every time.

That is why people trying to argue -- as originally noted -- that, "it might have been an accident", is a pet peeve of mine.

Jumping Frog wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:My pet peeve is calling these kind of situations an "accident". It is either "negligent" or a "homicide", but it surely is not an "accident".

I understand why you are saying this, but I still disagree. At this point I don't think that are enough facts to determine negligence.

Yes, I believe there are enough facts.

Of course, I am also of the opinion that 99.99% of firearm incidents that are labeled "accidents" are more properly term "negligent". The 0.01% that are true accidents are most commonly attributable to actual mechanical failure without any human actions.

As for the negligent 99.9%, it gets right back to Cooper's Four Rules. From "Jeff Cooper's Commentaries" by Jeff Cooper, Vol. 11, No. 4, April 2003:

We hoped by this time that the standard rules of safe gunhandling would have become universal throughout the world. They have been arrived at by careful consideration over the years, and they do not need modification or addition. We trust that all the family have them by heart in all languages, but for those who came in late here they are again:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Those will do. We need all four and we do not need five. It should not be necessary to belabor this issue, but life is not perfect.

If that muzzle had not been pointing at the man, he would not have been shot. Violation of safety rules makes it negligent. Every time.

That is why people trying to argue -- as originally noted -- that, "it might have been an accident", is a pet peeve of mine.

From what I read these are the facts: 1) a man left a house with a gun. 2) Person [wife] inside the house heard a shot 3) Two people had bullet wounds, one fatal.

WildBill wrote:

G26ster wrote:My only point was to show that your interpretation/definition of the word accident and the common usage of the word accident differ. That's all, no more. No different than two drunk drivers colliding head-on. It would still be initially reported/called an "accident" even though gross negligence was the cause. The legal outcomes do not change the common usage of the word.

I have noticed that the term "car accident" is seldom used by LEOs and insurance agents any more. They call them crashes or collisions.

Respectfully disagree Wild Bill, to this extent.

Go to ANY insurance company website's search block, and type in "accident." You will see that they still call crashes/collisions/etc. accidents regardless of any negligence involved. Once again, you can't change common usage. While the consequences are not comparable, the principle is the same, in a recent survey on the Forum the majority (51%) called ALL soft drinks "Coke." http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ke#p635369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It may be Coke, it may not be Coke, but to them it's ALL Coke. That's an example of common usage of a word that may or may not be accurate, just like the word "accident."

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:

G26ster wrote:My only point was to show that your interpretation/definition of the word accident and the common usage of the word accident differ. That's all, no more. No different than two drunk drivers colliding head-on. It would still be initially reported/called an "accident" even though gross negligence was the cause. The legal outcomes do not change the common usage of the word.

I have noticed that the term "car accident" is seldom used by LEOs and insurance agents any more. They call them crashes or collisions.

Respectfully disagree Wild Bill, to this extent.

Go to ANY insurance company website's search block, and type in "accident." You will see that they still call crashes/collisions/etc. accidents regardless of any negligence involved. Once again, you can't change common usage. While the consequences are not comparable, the principle is the same, in a recent survey on the Forum the majority (51%) called ALL soft drinks "Coke." http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... ke#p635369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It may be Coke, it may not be Coke, but to them it's ALL Coke. That's an example of common usage of a word that may or may not be accurate, just like the word "accident."

Okay, I give up. I admit that I can't change common usage, but I [usually] try to use the proper term myself. But when people ask me if I want to get a beer, I will say okay, and then order a glass of wine.

I must be extra dense today because I still don't understand how my "interpretation/ definition of the word accident and the common usage of the word accident differ."

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

bronco78 wrote:It's a frame of mind as well as semantics...

I think the "frame of mind" on the forum may be skewed compared to the general public. Most of us [CHL Forum members] are very careful with firearms and try to follow the safety rules 100% of the time. So I think that we tend to be overly critical of the people who don't have the same frame of mind that we have.

We should keep in mind that those folks who are receiving the critical comments here weren't chosen at random. They are individuals whose poor knowledge of or attention to the basic requirements for safely using firearms got them the bad and sometimes tragic results that good safety practices are designed to prevent.

I agree that the comments are critical, but they are deservedly so, and we ourselves would receive and deserve the same if we earned them the same way.

They are folks who's actions got news coverage, which are probably a small sample of all incidents involving firearms. This is a case where most everyone agrees that the shooting is suspicous and all of the facts are not known. My peeve is that some forum members call every unintentional discharge negligent and refuse to concide that there are actually accidental discharges. That's all I have to say about that.

Bill,

I agree with you on your last point. There are "shades of grey" cases as well as clear cut negligence, and I can see calling such cases accidents. An example would be when a dog causes a discharge by managing to get his paw into the trigger guard of a resting firearm while bouncing around. That's not a circumstance that one would easily anticipate, but one could argue that there's an element of negligence because the gun was ready to fire and not in the immediate control of the owner.

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

bronco78 wrote:It's a frame of mind as well as semantics...

I think the "frame of mind" on the forum may be skewed compared to the general public. Most of us [CHL Forum members] are very careful with firearms and try to follow the safety rules 100% of the time. So I think that we tend to be overly critical of the people who don't have the same frame of mind that we have.

We should keep in mind that those folks who are receiving the critical comments here weren't chosen at random. They are individuals whose poor knowledge of or attention to the basic requirements for safely using firearms got them the bad and sometimes tragic results that good safety practices are designed to prevent.

I agree that the comments are critical, but they are deservedly so, and we ourselves would receive and deserve the same if we earned them the same way.

They are folks who's actions got news coverage, which are probably a small sample of all incidents involving firearms. This is a case where most everyone agrees that the shooting is suspicous and all of the facts are not known. My peeve is that some forum members call every unintentional discharge negligent and refuse to concide that there are actually accidental discharges. That's all I have to say about that.

Bill,

I agree with you on your last point. There are "shades of grey" cases as well as clear cut negligence, and I can see calling such cases accidents. An example would be when a dog causes a discharge by managing to get his paw into the trigger guard of a resting firearm while bouncing around. That's not a circumstance that one would easily anticipate, but one could argue that there's an element of negligence because the gun was ready to fire and not in the immediate control of the owner.

Excaliber - So I don't hijack this thread any further, please follow me here: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=57069&p=700067#p700067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:My pet peeve is calling these kind of situations an "accident". It is either "negligent" or a "homicide", but it surely is not an "accident".

I understand why you are saying this, but I still disagree. At this point I don't think that are enough facts to determine negligence.

Respectfully,l I disagree with your disagreement.

unless the gun was sitting on the ground or table by itself, with no human interaction AND it went off on it's own.. Is fired though intentional manipulation of the firing device or was negligently operated in such a way as to make it discharge. in any case, the gun firing was NOT an accident.

Have you or someone you know ever had something bad happen? Have you ever been in a car crash or dropped and broken a dish? Was there negligence involved in every incidence?

Not every incident involves negligence but at least nine times out of ten car crashes are caused by negligence or some other error by one or more drivers. For unintended firearms discharges I hear about, the percentage caused by human error seems to be even higher. I don't know the details of this incident but based on the information we do have, I can't blame someone for playing the pretty significant odds.