any relation with AD/ND?

[carleb]

I started to respond to the thread about the AD/ND and wound to the hand, but thought this was more appropriate in another thread.

I know some folks shoot, but don't hunt. Does anyone think that AD/ND situations are more prone with people that shoot, but don't hunt vs. those that hunt and have seen the massive wounds any high power can inflict?

It sure made an impression on me when I saw what a 150 gr. 30-06 can do to a 100 lb. Oklahoma whitetail. Makes a fella reflect on the survivability with gunshots. Double and triple checks are a routine and not paranoia with me.

I'm not digging at the fella who shot his own hand. He may be an accomplished hunter for all I know, but it's a legitimate question.

 

[Zombie]

from somebody that lived in NW oklahoma in a "farm town" where everybody hunts and does trap shoots/skeet shooting.

Not uncommon to hear of an AD/ND from a fall or dropped weapon, bad trigger discipline, etc.

 

[kroberts2131]

I don't think it makes a big difference. I love shooting guns but have never been hunting. I am very cautious when I am handling a firearm but that also comes from my military background. There are probably just as many hunters who are lazy with gun safety as there are non hunters who are lazy with gun safety.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

I dont think theres a relation. All it takes is common sense to know the effects of a gunshot, even from a .22lr or bb/pellet gun for that matter.

I would say some AD/NDs occur because of lack of common sense, but the majority of cases it comes back to the old saying... "They dont call them accidents for nothing."

I know some guys who I would consider some of the best gun handlers around (hunting, sport shooting, plinking) that have had accidents.

 

[Glocktogo]

AD/ND's stem from a lack of safe gun handling practices. I've seen excellent gun handling skills in the field and very bad ones.

If you ingrain the 4 basic gun safety rules into your gun handling, you'll be far more likely to not have an AD/ND

I break it down into three categories:

Unintentional Discharge: You didn't intend for the firearm to go off when it did. However, you were in the act of shooting and because you followed all other gun safety rules, there was no accident or injury and all that resulted was you were startled when the gun went off.

Accidental Discharge: You did not intend for the gun to go off and weren't in the act of shooting. However, because you followed all other gun safety rules, there was no property damage or injury and all that resulted was your ears ringing and you needed to change your underwear.

Negligent Discharge: You failed to follow one or more of the basic gun safety rules and as a result, you caused property damage and or injury to yourself or another. Now you get to live with the result of your failure to follow basic precautions.

One thing I think really helps is regular shooting competition. When you routinely practice safe gun handling under stress, it really ingrains those habits to the point they're subconcious.

 

[Wall]

Another big problem is complacency.
We get so comfortable handling these guns, we get too loose with our saftey procedures. It can happen to anybody & it can happen in the blink of an eye.

 

[carleb]

All good points.

 

[inactive]

Glocktogo,

I always thought of them this way:

Accidental discharge: a discharge based on a failure or flaw of the weapon (i.e. broken sear, safety/decocker, not drop safe, etc.). These would be very uncommon but not unheard of.

Negligent discharge: based on unsafe care of control of the weapon. These would constitute the vast majority we hear about.

 

[Werewolf]

I'd imagine that there are more ND's in the hunter crowd than the target shooter/competition crowd especially among those deemed Fudds. I have no empirical evidence to back this assertion up its just what my gut tells me.

That said:
IMO there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. If the gun goes off anytime other than on purpose its negligence and could have been prevented. (Note: fwiw I define negligence as preventable and accident as non-preventable)

If one is situationally aware, thinks further into the future than the end of their pecker, and follows the four rules in non-combat situations then it is extremely unlikely that one will ever experience a firearm discharge that was unintentional.

One caveat: I recently read a thread here about a design flaw in Remington 700 model rifles pre 82 that can cause the thing to discharge if just the right sequence of actions occurs. That might actually be an accidental discharge, maybe.

 

[Glocktogo]

Glocktogo,

I always thought of them this way:

Accidental discharge: a discharge based on a failure or flaw of the weapon (i.e. broken sear, safety/decocker, not drop safe, etc.). These would be very uncommon but not unheard of.

Negligent discharge: based on unsafe care of control of the weapon. These would constitute the vast majority we hear about.

That's a pretty good way of looking at it. However, to me negligence implies damages, which may or may not be the case. If you spank off a round in the dirt and no other consequences ensue, no negligence, just a feeling of foolishness. Do the same while pointing it at your TV or another person and it's another story.