TexasCHLforum.com

APynckel wrote:God forbid, even those of us who choose to show that we have "Justice" on our side take responsibility for our actions, instead of use legal jargon to weasel out of a negligence of the 4 basic firearm safety rules.

This thread is very telling.

Ignoring or refusing to accept the law doesn't make it go away.

So if you were holding a gun and got hit by lightning and the gun went off, it would be "an act of God".

If you are standing under a lone tree on a hill during a thunderstorm and get struck by lightning, you could be viewed as contributing to the accidental discharge.

ldj1002 wrote:

Shoot Straight wrote:

WildBill wrote:Blame is not the same as negligence.

So true. People are also usually to blame when they do something intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Back to the subject of accidental discharges, when NTSB calls most crashes "accidents" instead of "pilot error" I'm willing to reconsider my choice of words. Until then, all I can say is good luck avoiding accidents!

I know a person that was a bus driver and if a driver got rear ended it was almost always a chargeable accident by the company. Note I said by the company, not the law.

Back in the stone ages, in California, if a driver rear-ended another vehicle, they were always at fault. That was the law. It has since changed.

anygunanywhere wrote:We investigate under the assumption that it is never "operator error". Root causes can nearly always be uncovered because even if an operator makes a misake, the mistake can be traced back to some other failure. Anygunanywhere

We had one client tell us if we ever sent in a corrective action report where the root cause was "operator error" they would automatically reject the report and send it back to us.

MechAg94 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The safety philosophy of my employer is that all accidents are preventable. This all encompassing philosophy covers a lot of responsibility from all engineering and operations disciplines.

Even though all accidents are preventable not all accident causes are negligent.

Some causes can and do get attributed to unsafe conditions but the majority are a result of unsafe behaviors.

Most accidents can be traced back to multiple causes and/or behaviors that contribute to the event. In almost all cases, if only one of the unsafe behaviors or conditions had been removed or corrected the accident would never have happened.

For the most part, we as a group are reasonable people and strive to be accident free because our chosen passion can very easily lead to serious injury and death if we do not stay vigilant.

Anygunanywhere

THis is definitely true. Most of the time, accidents happen because of a combination of things. Often, most of those things were done all the time with no consequences for years before they all stacked up together to produce the accident.

That said, there are things we as gun owners can do to minimize accidents and we need to be as vigilant as possible to adhere to those safety rules.

I agree with both of your comments and observations, but would like to make some additional comments. I have been involved in reviewing many safety incidents.

IMO, the investigation should be focused in determining the root causes of the accident so that they can be eliminated by some type of corrective action so they do not reoccur. The probable that I see is that too many people want to jump to a conclusion and point blame - usually at the operator - the lowest guy on the totem pole. Then they say "Train the operator" and that is the end of it.

The investigation must go beyond the direct cause to get to the root cause. For example "The operator turned the wrong switch" may be the direct cause of an accident, but it is not the root cause. You have to keep asking why did this happen until you dig down deep enough. As both of you stated most accidents happen because of a combination of things going wrong. That is why it is essential to find as many root causes as possible so they can be eliminated. I know I am preaching to the choir, but I hope to give some of the people reading this some more insight.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:I can't believe some people are defending the legislator's attitude that it's acceptable to be careless when handling loaded guns. I hope it never hits them like a jar of jalapenos.

Please, please reference the post that does that.

I think you may have misunderstood something you read. I don't see any posts suggesting what you just said Tic Tac.

I think he may be talking about the examples of accident versus negligence posted by Charles. At least, that is my guess.

Edited to add: I had forgotten that the OP was about a legislator. Oops!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There are countless examples that I can list, but I think these two exemplify my point. Mere occurrence does not equate to negligence. Again, everyone can set their personal standard to a strict liability level, but I choose to stick with Texas law. Chas.

Charles - Thanks for the examples. I wouldn't mind reading a few more.

Shoot Straight wrote:

Abraham wrote:There are many different kinds of accidental discharges that are not the fault of the gun owner.

To wit: The holster that over time becomes deformed and snags the trigger...and on and on.

I agree that's not intentional but I think a reasonable man will agree the shooter is not blameless. They're as much at fault as someone who drives a car with bald tires and worn out brakes and crashes because the car doesn't stop fast enough. We are responsible for maintaining our gear and irresponsible if we don't.

Blame is not the same as negligence.

Please read Charles Cotton's post. It is a gift. Good Luck!

HKMike wrote:I'm confident that everyone on this board does their absolute best to ensure an unintended discharge never happens. However, the difference between unintended, accidental, and negligent are degrees of carelessness I suppose. We do our part to ensure that it never happens, but being human does figure into the equation. To say accidents happen does not mean they have to happen. So, we all do what we can to limit the probability of an accident.

I don't believe that to be true.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:For quite some time now, there have been a growing number of gun owners that take the position that there's no such thing as an "accidental discharge." In their opinion, any unintended discharge of a firearm is a "negligent discharge." I strongly disagree, but that's not the point of my post.

Even though the Texas reasonable person standard for negligence will not hold that every single unintended discharge of a firearm is the result of negligence, Texas law allows anyone to set a higher standard for themselves. If they do so, then they will be held to that standard in a court of law. So remember, anyone who states in a post, in a conversation, or in any other setting, that every unintended discharge of a firearm is the result of negligence, then they will be held to that standard when they experience such a discharge. In short, you are creating a strict liability situation for yourself and you will be held liable for personal injury, death, or property damage. Good luck!

Chas.

I have stated this many times on this forum.