Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Negligent Discharge on Video

my comment:

What do you think about my theory which says that folks who do this once should lose their right to own guns because they’re more likely to do it again. One who has proven himself capable fo such stupidity, is just not safe.

I know thr opposite argument, that people learn from their mistakes and a guy like this is LESS likely to repeat it. But I don’t think that’s consistent with human nature, do you?

What do you think?


  1. There is a problem here in that some people tend to bunch up those they consider "anti-gun" into one solid "enemy".

    I disagree with the comment that "should lose their right to own guns because they’re more likely to do it again."

    The problem is that the more people handle guns, the more likely incidents of negligent discharges are likely to happen--no matter how well trained or how much they follow the safety rules. That's why Rule I is "ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED".

    I have a nascent post on this topic starting with this Article from the Royal Army Corps Journal on UK Forces Unintentional Firearms Injuries.

    They found that over the 5 year period of the study, there were 1158 Unintentional firearm discharges, forty three (4%) of which resulted in injury. Fifty five military personnel sustained unintentional firearm injuries during the review period, more than half of which were gunshot wounds and this included one fatality. The Regular Army suffers an average of 7.7 unintentional firearm injuries per 100 000 Regular Army person years.

  2. Training accident.

    You would be surprised how many very smart, well trained people do really dumb things. On repetition 5 Million plus, carelessness can begin to creep in and over confidence is abundant. That is when an ND occurs.

    Not to quote an old TV Show, but I remember thinking about this while watching an episode of the Unit called the 200th hour. After the youngest member of the team accidentally wings a fellow member during a live fire exercise they first chew him out, then congratulate him on his "200th hour". Apparently the most common time in a pilots training for a near miss is their 200th hour. It is the point where their confidence begins to outshine their actual ability. In other words, they know just enough to be dangerous. The character wasn't a pilot. He was a shooter, but they use the pilot reference to remind the shooter there is always more to learn and to remain diligent.

    The man in the video is just simply moving faster than his ability. He needed to slow down, be sure his finger stayed straight until at the 3 count, before allowing it to enter the trigger guard. He's rushing his training if you will.

    BTW - Same thing happens to motorcyclists.

    Accidents and fatalities have two peaks... First 6 months of riding, and the 2-3 year period.

  3. These are not accidents, they are negligence. Accidents can happen to anybody, but negligence can only happen to the negligent.

    I say, one strike you're out.

  4. Did you read the Stansfield Report? http://www.ramcjournal.com/2009/mar09/stansfield.pdf?

    "an ND by a REME armourer servicing a challengingly blocked rifle."

    The reason the army calls them Negligent discharge is the belief that a trained person wouldn't have an accident unless they were being negligent. This attitude has created a stigma to NDs in the military and civilian communities both which may lead to under reporting of discharge events. The MOD recognises this as a concern and has simplified the reporting procedure accordingly.

  5. Which guns count? I'm just wondering if Laci would lose his rights forever under this hypothetical law of yours.

  6. Anonymous, Laci gets a pass 'cause he's on my side.