Saturday, March 26, 2011

Can One Learn from a Negligent Discharge?


Tonight, I had my first Negligent Discharge. After cleaning my CMMG conversion kit for my AR-15, I reinstalled the kit into my carbine. I do not own any 22 snap caps- so I cycled a live round to insure it was feeding properly. I then dropped the mag, cycled the bolt a few times (which I thought ejected the round) and dropped the hammer with the gun pointed toward the floor.

And promptly shot my basement floor.

I failed to visually inspect the chamber to insure the weapon was unloaded. Thankfully, no one was hurt (aside from my pride).

my comment:

You are a danger to yourself and others, my friend. The only difference between you and most of the fellow gun slingers is you admit it.

My belief is a person who has proven to be capable of such dangerous stupidity is more likely to do it again in the future than someone who has never done it. Others hotly contest that idea and claim the opposite. A negligent discharge makes a person even more careful and therefore less likely to ever do it again, they say.

I'll bet I know which one you believe.

I have a solution, or I should say a partial solution. The Mike B is King solution formerly known as the One strike you're out rule.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

6 comments:

  1. I will give this guy credit that at the very least he had the sense not to be pointing this AT anyone, only at the floor.

    As to the idea that the "person who has proven to be capable of such dangerous stupidity is more likely to do it again in the future than someone who has never done it." is a bit harsher than I would be.

    There has to be hope that each of us learns from our mistakes, as none of us is ever completely free of making them.

    I would be more inclined to see the Mike B is King rule invoked for those who harm a person in some way, not merely ...redecorate their basement floor (the hard way).

    ReplyDelete
  2. "As to the idea that the "person who has proven to be capable of such dangerous stupidity is more likely to do it again in the future than someone who has never done it." is a bit harsher than I would be."

    I think that the principle is sound.

    That's why you see so many of the same people constantly calling for irresponsible bans and restrictions on the law-abiding.

    Certainly dangerous, undisputably stupid. Theory is sound.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guy Ohki wrote: "That's why you see so many of the same people constantly calling for irresponsible bans and restrictions on the law-abiding.

    Certainly dangerous, undisputably stupid. Theory is sound."

    Not sound at all Guy; the law abiding are among those who have caused us dramatically higher gun deaths and injuries than other comparable industrialized / developed countries with simimlar weapons regulations.

    I'm so very sorry you are not one of those people who are able to admit their mistakes or learned from them, and therefore do not allow for that possibility in others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I'm so very sorry you are not one of those people who are able to admit their mistakes or learned from them, and therefore do not allow for that possibility in others."

    I never said that I never allow the possiblity - just that Mike's principle is sound (giving an example).

    I do allow the possibility that people can learn from their mistakes. I have indeed done so in the past. Had I not corrected my mistake, I would heartily support most of Mike's suggestions regarding firearms.

    I simply thought that his principle made sense - more so, however, when applied to every action made by groups like the Bradys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a little confused Guy. I'm talking about mistakes with guns. What are you talking about that includes the Bradys?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The same thing I always point out when the "MikeB is King" rule is brought up.

    You seem to insist that a moment of irresponsibility (Negligent Discharge) should result in the activity that resulted in that moment (gun ownership) being permanently forbidden.

    The thing is, you seem to only require this of the pro-gun side. My point is that several of the anti-gun groups that you seem to support and defend do the same thing.

    It can't be disputed that several of their claims regarding firearms have been lies (irresponsible behaviour, of far more than a single moment), yet you don't demand they be barred from the gun debate.

    My point is, if your advocacy against one irresponsibility is good and sensible, then it should be applied to similar situations within your side of the debate. Anything less is hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete