Culture of Judgement and Negligent Discharges?

[Tom Fineis]

It's all in context. The situation surrounding the ND matters, IMO.

Some dude touching off his Ruger into his stove at night because he didn't take two seconds to check his gun is different than a dude launching one into the dirt when he is stressed from a shooting drill. One is a complete and utter disregard for safety, and the other is generally a setting of a dude trying to better himself, and usually only breaking one of the safety rules at a time.

I dropped a loaded gun last summer for the first time. I was on the range working weak hand draws and it slipped out of my hand. I let it fall as I had planned on (but never knew what I would really do until it happened). I think this is different than dropping a gun at home while you are air gunning the laundry room and bumped into a shelf (don't act like you haven't done it).

One is an honest mistake in a learning environment, one is fucking around. Both can be dangerous, but there is risk in everything we do. Spending hours behind a gun only increases the chances for honest mistakes, which means we need to keep the stupid ones from happening that much more.

One of the more prolific ND's on the net (Haley) was handled terribly by all sides. It could have easily been prevented, the footage could have easily been deleted, and he (or his "team") could have handled the fallout much better. Just because it was on a range doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

Just my take.

[BehindBlueI's]

I hate that statement and wish it would die. It has become a pre-recorded excuse, apology, or dismissal...and a self-fulfilling prophecy. While more handling might increase the likelihood of an ND event, it doesn't have to be.

It reminds me to prepare for an ND. Sand barrel, etc.

[BJXDS]

I hate that statement and wish it would die. It has become a pre-recorded excuse, apology, or dismissal...and a self-fulfilling prophecy. While more handling might increase the likelihood of an ND event, it doesn't have to be.

I am of the belief there are 2 types of shooters, those that have had a ND or those that will. Law of averages/the human fuck up thing..... If the basic rules of safety are ALWAYS used, in theory, there should Never be a ND, but... if there is... the damage should be minimized.

A ND that results in a hole in your wall from dry firing is totally different than a ND that goes thru the wall and hits someone. Neither are good, but one is horrible! If I had a ND and no one was injured, I Would Feel Like a Fuck Up, because I was. If I had a ND and someone was injured, I don't think I could live with my self.

If you Fuck Up, OWN it. The bar for this NEEDS to be set very high, because the consequences are.

For the record, I also hate the sentence from my original post that you quoted, if the connotation is a pre-recorded excuse. I did not imply it as an excuse, and take every precaution to ensure it does NOT happen. I think we all agree, the more we do something, the risk of failure increases. I always tell myself that because I don't want to become complacent, and think it can never happen to me.

The bottom line is my last sentence:
If you Fuck Up, OWN it. The bar for this NEEDS to be set very high, because the consequences are.[/QUOTE] maybe I should have added to always take every precaution to ensure you don't Fuck Up.

[fixer]

NDs should have a stigma because the layers of protection that the big 4 provide have to have been violated...which is pretty bad in my opinion. Not to mention the safety features of the pistol itself. Lowering the standard for this would be a bad idea.

ADs should also have a stigma but for different reasons. We should be evaluating our engagement of the pistol while shooting. Evaluating how our hand interacts with the gun; what was our plan for the drill? did we get confused? Evaluate what that would it mean if it were a live defensive situation? Is this software or hardware?

[mc1911]

"I can't help but believe part of why folks I correct on the line for safety errors get initially upset because the cultural expectation is that a safety mistake means you're some kind of epic retard. Perhaps that cultural standard is doing more harm then good in the aggregate."

This statement from the OP suggests that the intent is not to treat NDs as if they are no big deal. I don't see a suggestion to lower the standard of seriousness. The point is that treating someone who made a mistake like they are a pile of crap deserving of humiliation and judgement doesn't make anything better. It seems that the majority of replies take into consideration the difference between someone who recognizes the seriousness of such an error vs. someone who doesn't seem to care and doesn't recognize the danger presented to those around him. This person probably needs a come-to-Jesus conversation about safety and responsibility, but this can also be done in a professional manner.

Truthfully, how the situation is corrected really depends not only on the attitude of the person who made the mistake but also on the pride/humility level of anyone who speaks into the situation.

Maybe another way to think about it is to evaluate whether it is a shooter's technique and knowledge that need correcting or if the problem is attitude. Responses will vary depending on which is the culprit.

[pablo]

People have an overwhelming need to coddle their egos, and feel smarter and superior to others, even if it's completely unfounded and to their own detriment. Someone did something stupid and screwed up, instead of doing things differently to avoid ening up in the same situation, people do the same thing and think it won't happen to them, because they're too smart to distinguish between the difference in being good and being lucky.

Serpa holsters turned out to be a terrible idea, and the design persist and Blackhawk still lands government contracts. We can explain the reason why it's a bad idea, the number of ND's and bodily injury associated with the holster, and people that are in denial will still claim that it's perfectly safe and an end user problem. "Those people wouldn't have shot themselves if they were half as intelligent as I am."

DG type switches, prior to Plano PD Sgt NDing into his arrestee, Dr Lewinsky from the Force Science Institute, had already said that DG switches could be problematic and had research and examples to back it up. Tell an operator that a DG switch may not be the smartest idea and you'll basically get told "I'm too smart to fuck that up."

In the professional world some of the worst firearm safety violators are the in "elite" units. They're smarter than those dumbfucks in regular units, they need to operate and they're too smart to follow those rules for dumbfucks cuz it just slows them down. In the last ten years at least two thirds of the officers NDing and shooting each other incidents that I've heard about have been SWAT guys. It's always the same we operate in dynamic environments excuses, but the reality is that just ego that lead to not following well established safety rules.

I hate that statement and wish it would die. It has become a pre-recorded excuse, apology, or dismissal...and a self-fulfilling prophecy. While more handling might increase the likelihood of an ND event, it doesn't have to be.

I don't think it's true either, but people have a tendency to completely disregard well established safety protocols until they've experienced some degree discomfort or pain from not following said protocols. That's across the all board.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Even Cooper made mistakes. IIRC, he was demonstrating his scout rifle concept and left some rounds in the stock. Some idiot, when the gun was unsupervised, loaded it and had a ND.

I get a probability argument here. It's like a guy making his wife have more and more children because they had a string of girls. The next one has to be a boy (gambler's fallacy). There's no guarantee that you will have a ND because you haven't for a long time. However, if you look at the odds of a string with no NDs over a long time, that string has a low probability.

Took me 20 years to have one (safely down range on clearing a gun). I took the penalty and just continued to help out.

[HCM]

Even Cooper made mistakes. IIRC, he was demonstrating his scout rifle concept and left some rounds in the stock. Some idiot, when the gun was unsupervised, loaded it and had a ND.

I get a probability argument here. It's like a guy making his wife have more and more children because they had a string of girls. The next one has to be a boy (gambler's fallacy). There's no guarantee that you will have a ND because you haven't for a long time. However, if you look at the odds of a string with no NDs over a long time, that string has a low probability.

Took me 20 years to have one (safely down range on clearing a gun). I took the penalty and just continued to help out.

My understanding is Cooper had at least one ND. He was indoors and began to dry fire with a pistol which he believed was unloaded, aiming through a window at a water meter outside. When asked afterwards why he shot his water meter, Cooper replied "Because it's what I was aiming at".

[Tamara]

The OP should write a post about his premise. He could title it "The Safety Sin", maybe.

[45dotACP]

I coulda sworn we had this discussion earlier...about the inescapable likelihood of having an unintentional loud noise....amirite?

Listen...it's not a sin to have a ND...but I don't think that you're destined to have one. Be safe out there boys and girls...and remember...no amount of cool looking go-fast is worth putting a hole in your house, yourself, or your loved ones.