Posted May 10, 2016 4:00 pm by Comments

By Robert Farago

Gun condom (courtesy ammoland.com)

John Farnam writes [via Ammoland.com]

My good friend and colleague, Dave Grossman of Grossman Training Academy, correctly points out that we unwittingly create the false expectation that all “bad outcomes” can be prevented when we globally use the term, “negligent discharge” (ND) to describe all gun accidents. “Negligence” is a legal term, and we blindly concede legal liability when we use it casually and automatically . . .

“Unintentional Discharge” (UD) is a better and more inclusive term. Many, probably most, UDs are ND. But not all, as this story demonstrates. As another sage friend and colleague, Skip Gochenour, points out:

“Safe” gun-handling is an imaginary concept and is probably is not possible, any more than is “safe” driving, “safe” downhill skiing, nor “safe” sex!

The term, “safe” implies a guarantee:

“Do it this way, and nothing bad will ever happen”

Sleazy, ambulance-chasing personal-injury attorneys insist that every “bad outcome” is the direct result of some fault on the part of the nearest deep-pocket. Sometimes, they’re right! But, “fault-finding,” particularly when the only real motivation is financial, generates unrealistic expectations.

The sage among us handle guns “carefully” and “correctly,” but we still handle guns! We also …Read the Rest

Source:: Truth About Guns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *