JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I never thought of it that way? I always cringed at "Accidental" because that's like "Oh, woops, I dropped my doughnut!" which doesn't mean diddly, except a dirty doughnut. "Negligent" discharge is something that can not be allowed. Well, unless you were pointed down range and had a 1.5lb trigger pull and didn't expect the shot?
I agree; I think that's why trainers harp on "There are no accidents!" so much.

It's like when one of my kids hurts a sibling or breaks one of their toys- "It was just an accident...", as if that absolves them of guilt and makes it better. Saying it was "just an accident" after accidentally shooting someone, does NOT make it better. :(

I do understand the dislike of the word "accident"; my point is just that technically it is grammatically correct to call any non-intentional shooting an accident, negligent or not. Negligence means you weren't being careful enough, but it's still an accident if it wasn't intentional.

Most accidents are due to negligence. Accidentally broke your brother's toy? Negligence
Had an "accident" in your pants? Probably negligence
Had an accident on the road? Usually negligence
Accidental pregnancy? Yeah, that one's most likely negligence too
Accidentally shot an employee on a movie set? Major, major negligence!

I preach it to my kids every single time they're around a gun; there's no room for negligence when handling firearms, always focus and respect, never carelessness or horseplay. Always follow the basic safety rules, even when you know it's unloaded, especially then!

It should never happen but accidental/negligent discharges can and do happen, even to the best of us. There's no excuse for it but you have to always be aware that you're not infallible and it could happen to you, and that's where the safety rules come in. Those safety rules will save lives when you make a deeply ingrained habit of always following them.

OK, sorry about that. I'll get off my soapbox now... :)
 
I agree; I think that's why trainers harp on "There are no accidents!" so much.

It's like when one of my kids hurts a sibling or breaks one of their toys- "It was just an accident...", as if that absolves them of guilt and makes it better. Saying it was "just an accident" after accidentally shooting someone, does NOT make it better. :(

I do understand the dislike of the word "accident"; my point is just that technically it is grammatically correct to call any non-intentional shooting an accident, negligent or not. Negligence means you weren't being careful enough, but it's still an accident if it wasn't intentional.

Most accidents are due to negligence. Accidentally broke your brother's toy? Negligence
Had an "accident" in your pants? Probably negligence
Had an accident on the road? Usually negligence
Accidental pregnancy? Yeah, that one's most likely negligence too
Accidentally shot an employee on a movie set? Major, major negligence!

I preach it to my kids every single time they're around a gun; there's no room for negligence when handling firearms, always focus and respect, never carelessness or horseplay. Always follow the basic safety rules, even when you know it's unloaded, especially then!

It should never happen but accidental/negligent discharges can and do happen, even to the best of us. There's no excuse for it but you have to always be aware that you're not infallible and it could happen to you, and that's where the safety rules come in. Those safety rules will save lives when you make a deeply ingrained habit of always following them.

OK, sorry about that. I'll get off my soapbox now... :)
:s0140:/:(/:rolleyes:

Because, I can only add one reaction to a post.
 
Has anyone said pistol "braces" and bump stocks yet? Cause those are dumb. Just in case I missed it. Haha.
You are not going full metal Fudd on us, are you???


JUST KIDDING!!!
I know this one might offend some people, but I swear I'm not a grammar nazi, even though I might think like one sometimes…

My pet peeve is this idea that a "negligent discharge" is not an "accidental discharge".

Baloney. If it's not intentional, then it's accidental. "Unintentional" is a synonym for "accidental".

Negligence causes accidents, so a negligent discharge is a type of accidental discharge, according to the dictionary definition of "accident". Being accidental doesn't lessen the consequences of negligence, and accidental doesn't mean faultless.
Not offended...takes way more than that, but let me share a perspective. From this and your follow-up post I think we are basically on the same page.

Legally in most worlds I'm familiar with, you cannot be liable for an "accident." Accident implies that the event was not preventable. If it is predictable, it is preventable. If there is a behavior that is at the root cause of the event, it is preventable. Virtually every discharge is either intentional (at a range, committing homicide, etc.) or a predictable human failure but predictable thus preventable. This includes using the wrong or broken holster, putting too light of a trigger on a gun for the user and specific use, along with many other "predictable" causes.

Accidents are out of the hands of humans. Catastrophic failure of something that cannot reasonably be predicted. To us who work in safety industries (for me firearms and vehicles) we try to differentiate between these two. I have to check myself and realize that most folks lump all of these under "accidents" and that is fine in the big picture of things, as long as we don't blame inanimate objects for human failures.

I can respect your peeve that sometimes we get too picky on this.
 
You are not going full metal Fudd on us, are you???


JUST KIDDING!!!

Not offended...takes way more than that, but let me share a perspective. From this and your follow-up post I think we are basically on the same page.

Legally in most worlds I'm familiar with, you cannot be liable for an "accident." Accident implies that the event was not preventable. If it is predictable, it is preventable. If there is a behavior that is at the root cause of the event, it is preventable. Virtually every discharge is either intentional (at a range, committing homicide, etc.) or a predictable human failure but predictable thus preventable. This includes using the wrong or broken holster, putting too light of a trigger on a gun for the user and specific use, along with many other "predictable" causes.

Accidents are out of the hands of humans. Catastrophic failure of something that cannot reasonably be predicted. To us who work in safety industries (for me firearms and vehicles) we try to differentiate between these two. I have to check myself and realize that most folks lump all of these under "accidents" and that is fine in the big picture of things, as long as we don't blame inanimate objects for human failures.

I can respect your peeve that sometimes we get too picky on this.
Not a fudd. Although I have been called that on this forum because of my distaste for the "brace." Even though I have clearly said that I think people should be allowed to turn their pistol into something that looks like Rosie O'Donnell if they so choose.
 
You are not going full metal Fudd on us, are you???


JUST KIDDING!!!

Not offended...takes way more than that, but let me share a perspective. From this and your follow-up post I think we are basically on the same page.

Legally in most worlds I'm familiar with, you cannot be liable for an "accident." Accident implies that the event was not preventable. If it is predictable, it is preventable. If there is a behavior that is at the root cause of the event, it is preventable. Virtually every discharge is either intentional (at a range, committing homicide, etc.) or a predictable human failure but predictable thus preventable. This includes using the wrong or broken holster, putting too light of a trigger on a gun for the user and specific use, along with many other "predictable" causes.

Accidents are out of the hands of humans. Catastrophic failure of something that cannot reasonably be predicted. To us who work in safety industries (for me firearms and vehicles) we try to differentiate between these two. I have to check myself and realize that most folks lump all of these under "accidents" and that is fine in the big picture of things, as long as we don't blame inanimate objects for human failures.

I can respect your peeve that sometimes we get too picky on this.
Thank you for such a well reasoned response. I can see where that would be an important legal differentiation. I understand that legal language is very precise and often means slightly different things than the understood meanings in general usage. I didn't look up the technical legal meaning of "accident", just the general dictionary definition.

The meanings of words do tend to change and evolve over the years too. One of my favorite examples (a minor pet peeve) is the use of "gift" as a verb. It used to be a verb used in a legal sense by people like lawyers, bankers, mortgage brokers, etc.. In the last couple decades it's come into common usage because people like to sound smart.

Now you hear it every day: "My dad gifted me his old lawnmower when he bought a new one", "My co-worker gifted me half a sandwich because I forgot my lunch today". :)
 
Backwards iron sights.

Backwards one piece mounts.

Optics mounted on the hand guard, forward of the upper receiver.
 
I've always been interested in etymology and the precise meanings of words, so just for kicks I looked up more info on accident:

"Accident is not always a precise legal term. It may be used generally in reference to various types of mishaps, or it may be given a technical meaning that applies when used in a certain statute or kind of case. Where it is used in a general sense, no particular significance can be attached to it. Where it is precisely defined, as in a statute, that definition strictly controls any decision about whether a certain event covered by that statute was in fact an accident.

In its most limited sense, the word accident is used only for events that occur without the intervention of a human being. This kind of accident also may be called an act of God. It is an event that no person caused or could have prevented—such as a tornado, a tidal wave, or an ice storm. An accident insurance policy can by its terms be limited to coverage only for this type of accident. Damage by hail to a field of wheat may be considered such an accident.

A policy of insurance, by its very nature, covers only accidents and not intentionally caused injuries. That principle explains why courts will read some exceptions into any insurance policy, whether or not they are expressly stated. For example, life insurance generally will not compensate for a suicide, and ordinary automobile insurance will not cover damages sustained when the owner is drag racing.

Accident insurance policies frequently insure not only against an act of God but also for accidents caused by a person's carelessness. An insured homeowner will expect coverage, for example, if someone drowns in his or her pool, even though the accident might have occurred because someone in the family left the gate open."


So only in the specific legal definitions is a mishap caused by negligence not a true "accident", but in general, everyday usage, "accident" simply means unintentional. If the average person hears news of an "accidental shooting", they just assume that it wasn't murder; whether it was negligence or a true unpreventable accident is beside the point at the moment.

Like I said, I enjoy learning etymology, not trying to be argumentative. I fully agree that there is never any excuse for negligence around firearms, and if safety trainers get their point across by using a very strict legal definition for accident vs. negligence, then that sounds good to me. :)
 
I've always been interested in etymology and the precise meanings of words, so just for kicks I looked up more info on accident:

"Accident is not always a precise legal term. It may be used generally in reference to various types of mishaps, or it may be given a technical meaning that applies when used in a certain statute or kind of case. Where it is used in a general sense, no particular significance can be attached to it. Where it is precisely defined, as in a statute, that definition strictly controls any decision about whether a certain event covered by that statute was in fact an accident.

In its most limited sense, the word accident is used only for events that occur without the intervention of a human being. This kind of accident also may be called an act of God. It is an event that no person caused or could have prevented—such as a tornado, a tidal wave, or an ice storm. An accident insurance policy can by its terms be limited to coverage only for this type of accident. Damage by hail to a field of wheat may be considered such an accident.

A policy of insurance, by its very nature, covers only accidents and not intentionally caused injuries. That principle explains why courts will read some exceptions into any insurance policy, whether or not they are expressly stated. For example, life insurance generally will not compensate for a suicide, and ordinary automobile insurance will not cover damages sustained when the owner is drag racing.

Accident insurance policies frequently insure not only against an act of God but also for accidents caused by a person's carelessness. An insured homeowner will expect coverage, for example, if someone drowns in his or her pool, even though the accident might have occurred because someone in the family left the gate open."


So only in the specific legal definitions is a mishap caused by negligence not a true "accident", but in general, everyday usage, "accident" simply means unintentional. If the average person hears news of an "accidental shooting", they just assume that it wasn't murder; whether it was negligence or a true unpreventable accident is beside the point at the moment.

Like I said, I enjoy learning etymology, not trying to be argumentative. I fully agree that there is never any excuse for negligence around firearms, and if safety trainers get their point across by using a very strict legal definition for accident vs. negligence, then that sounds good to me. :)
YEAH!! What he said!! I TOLD you so.....:s0121:

:s0140:
 
Meh, call it whatever you want. Accidental negligence, negligent accident, either way it means "you phucked up and shot someone or something you didn't intend to".
 
I never figured those guys were there to do under the table deals. You'd have to be a F'ing moron to try that. There were a couple/three local police at the shows at The EXPO Center usually. And there was usually people at the shows that would facilitate the BGCs.

I'd still go to those shows just for the heck of it, if they hadn't jacked parking up to $10.00 and the get-in fee was $13.00.
We (Oregon) didn't always have a BGC requirement for a private party, in state, sale, whether it was at a show, in the parking lot, or wherever. Back then only an FFL had the responsibility to run a background check.
That's when it was fun to buy and sell. Now it's kind of a PIA.
 
Last Edited:
BGC for private sales killed buying used or trading for me.
The hassle of finding a FFL willing to do the transfer...the extra fee for doing so... And having to wait to take home the firearm ...
All makes for a a huge PITA
I totally understand why folks ignore this law.
Andy
 
Abusive knife and firearm "tests" supposedly made to simulate battlefield / combat conditions.
BS...all of them.
Having been on a battlefield a few times....I can tell you....
I may have been dirty or abused...but my rifle was cleaned and maintained every chance I got.
My rifle and my skill with it was my ticket home...no way I'd mistreat it.
Andy
 
We (Oregon) didn't always have a BGC requirement for a private party, in state, sale, whether it was at a show, in the parking lot, or wherever. Back then only an FFL had the responsibility to run a background check.
That's when it was fun to buy and sell. Now it's kind of a PIA.
Agreed. I had said above that I came into the the gun owning community just before they passed the universal BGC laws. We had bought a couple of guns from shops. I only had the chance to buy one gun before.
 
I've always been interested in etymology and the precise meanings of words, so just for kicks I looked up more info on accident:
"Accident is not always a precise legal term. It may be used generally in reference to various types of mishaps, or it may be given a technical meaning that applies when used in a certain statute or kind of case. Where it is used in a general sense, no particular significance can be attached to it. Where it is precisely defined, as in a statute, that definition strictly controls any decision about whether a certain event covered by that statute was in fact an accident.

In its most limited sense, the word accident is used only for events that occur without the intervention of a human being. This kind of accident also may be called an act of God. It is an event that no person caused or could have prevented—such as a tornado, a tidal wave, or an ice storm. An accident insurance policy can by its terms be limited to coverage only for this type of accident. Damage by hail to a field of wheat may be considered such an accident.

A policy of insurance, by its very nature, covers only accidents and not intentionally caused injuries. That principle explains why courts will read some exceptions into any insurance policy, whether or not they are expressly stated. For example, life insurance generally will not compensate for a suicide, and ordinary automobile insurance will not cover damages sustained when the owner is drag racing.

Accident insurance policies frequently insure not only against an act of God but also for accidents caused by a person's carelessness. An insured homeowner will expect coverage, for example, if someone drowns in his or her pool, even though the accident might have occurred because someone in the family left the gate open."


So only in the specific legal definitions is a mishap caused by negligence not a true "accident", but in general, everyday usage, "accident" simply means unintentional. If the average person hears news of an "accidental shooting", they just assume that it wasn't murder; whether it was negligence or a true unpreventable accident is beside the point at the moment.

Like I said, I enjoy learning etymology, not trying to be argumentative. I fully agree that there is never any excuse for negligence around firearms, and if safety trainers get their point across by using a very strict legal definition for accident vs. negligence, then that sounds good to me. :)
There is no argument here at all...just an awesome discussion that I know I will learn and benefit from.

There actually are legal definitions of "accident" and one of the most important ones is found in jury instructions. I worked in the realm of accident reconstruction for part of my career and anyone who could prove their "crash" was an "accident" would be found not guilty. You are driving down the road on a normal day and a tree branch breaks, falls on your car, and kills your passenger. Accident. You would not have any liability. (The city might if it can be shown that they should have known this needed to be addressed, therefore, not an accident on their part).

Same car but you run a red light and your passenger dies. Not an "accident" by legal definition because a reasonable and prudent person would not run red lights. This would fall under "ordinary leglighence" Below is sample of jury instructions for those (sadly, like me) who like to deep dive into the why. (Sorry, they can be hard to read because of the punctuation as the judge has to fill-in the blanks as they are reading this information with the appropriate details.)


3404.Accident (Pen. Code, § 195)
<Give this paragraph when instructing on general or specific intent crimes>
[The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime> if (he/she)

acted [or failed to act] without the intent required for that crime, but​
acted instead accidentally. You may not find the defendant guilty of
<insert crime> unless you are convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt that (he/she) acted with the required intent.]
<Give this paragraph when instructing on criminal or ordinary negligence
crimes>
[The defendant is not guilty of <insert crime> if (he/she)

acted [or failed to act] accidentally without (criminal/ordinary)
negligence. You may not find the defendant guilty of <insert
crime> unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/

she) acted with (criminal/ordinary) negligence.
[(Criminal/Ordinary)negligence is defined in another instruction.]
[Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,
inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal
negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death
or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way
would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he
or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person
would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard
for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.]
[Ordinary negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent
reasonably foreseeable harm to oneself or someone else. A person is
negligent if he or she (does something that a reasonably careful person
would not do in the same situation/ [or] fails to do something that a
reasonably careful person would do in the same situation).

So, if someone does something with a gun that a reasonable and prudent person would not do causing it to discharge and shoot someone, legally, it would not be considered an "accident," but rather ordinary or criminal negligence, depending on the circumstances. If a gun malfunctions and shoots out of the possible expectations of the possessor, accident. For me, this is where my definition comes from. But in casual conversation if someone says AD and not ND I try and not be "that guy" and make a big deal out of it. In classes, I do explain the difference.

I learned that the language used in the legal world sometimes to not have the same meanings that we commonly use.
 
Last Edited:
There is no argument here at all...just an awesome discussion that I know I will learn and benefit from.
Same here, and I think we're on the same page. Funny, I know most here will roll their eyes over a seemingly silly discussion over the specific meaning of a simple word, but words do mean things, and often they mean slightly different things in different settings. When it comes to matters of legality, they can mean critically specific things and are very carefully defined for that specific setting. Thanks again for your patience and informative response.


Now we can talk about the meaning of the word "is". :D (Just kidding)

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is" -famous quote by someone famous
 
Same here, and I think we're on the same page. Funny, I know most here will roll their eyes over a seemingly silly discussion over the specific meaning of a simple word, but words do mean things, and often they mean slightly different things in different settings. When it comes to matters of legality, they can mean critically specific things and are very carefully defined for that specific setting. Thanks again for your patience and informative response.


Now we can talk about the meaning of the word "is". :D (Just kidding)

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is" -famous quote by someone famous
Agree,

And sorry my post added the strike through in the text. It was not there on my end.
 

Upcoming Events

Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR
Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington (ACSWW) gun show
Battle Ground, WA
Rickreall Gun Show
Rickreall, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top