Table start, Accidental Discharge DQ question

[98sr20ve]

We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

I don't think anyone is looking at a new way to DQ a shooter. I do think they are looking at ways to enforce safe gun handling practices.

if your gun is pointed at targets when it goes off, that seems pretty safe to me. Either the shooter got lucky, or he was careful enough to make sure the gun stayed on-target when handling it, which seems safe to me.

Only reason it hit the target is because I started with it on the table pointing at the targets. The movement of picking it up, while at the same time squeezing the trigger caused it to discharge in the general direction of the target. It just happened to hit a target.

Personally, if I had RO'd me I would of DQ'd me and not batted a eye at it. I would have sited the general rule of unsafe gun handling. If the person argued I would send him up the chain of command. I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. He can argue all he wants. I am going to say it was unsafe and let the powers that be decide what to do with the shooter. If I was on the arbitration committee I would uphold the DQ. It is unsafe to shoot your gun by mistake while you are attempting to pick it up. I don't care if it hits a target.

Edited June 26, 2012 by 98sr20ve

[ima45dv8]

Seems to me that some folks are getting lost in the weeds. It might be useful to go back to basics.

What is the number one priority in every match? Have fun? Be fair to the shooter?

No. The number one priority of the sport should be safety. Everything else comes after that.

I've been shooting a long time. Rules are great, but inadequate in some instances. I know unsafe gun handling when I see it, though it might be difficult to articulate a definitive rule to prevent a particular example.

The individual RO has one very important job; to promote safety. The rules should back up that job to the utmost, and not leave someone with such a (sometimes) difficult job swinging in the wind.

The rule cited in this case is left somewhat vague for a reason, and that is to allow the RO on the spot to exercise a certain degree of discretion.

Almost all NDs occur (mechanical failure notwithstanding) because of shooter error. Almost always they are trying to do something too quickly, without having thought about what they are doing.

I would have great difficulty rewarding a shooter for doing something unsafe when my eyes and experience tell me they did something unsafe. And rules be damned, we have to ask ourselves what is more important; satisfying some letter of the law, or preventing someone from getting hurt or killed.

If I DQ someone for doing something unsafe and they want to make an issue of it, that's just fine, so long as they get the message that I know they did something unsafe, and I won't let them do it again.

Andy

Great post.

[lcs]

We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

I don't think anyone is looking at a new way to DQ a shooter. I do think they are looking at ways to enforce safe gun handling practices.

if your gun is pointed at targets when it goes off, that seems pretty safe to me. Either the shooter got lucky, or he was careful enough to make sure the gun stayed on-target when handling it, which seems safe to me.

Disagree. Just because a gun is pointed at targets does not exclude 10.5 or give some kind of waiver for Unsafe Gun Handling. Most table starts (without the aid of a prop such as a briefcase) have the gun pointing in the direction of some target.

Your seriously trying to defend grabbing a gun off a table, gun is still lying flat ,and you crank off a round ; by saying "gun is pointed at a target so it's safe"? Having worked many, many, major matches, I can tell you not one person has ever attempted to engage targets with the gun laying flat on the table. Even if they said "I intended that" it is still a DQ in my book.

[motosapiens]

It is unsafe to shoot your gun by mistake while you are attempting to pick it up. I don't care if it hits a target.

You make some good points, and I probably wouldn't argue a dq in the situation described, however I don't see that much of a difference between an unplanned discharge when picking it up vs an unplanned discharge when pointing at targets. Most of us have cooked off an extra round at some point or another, like just before the sights get on target in a transition.

So I might not dq myself if the RO didn't.

[98sr20ve]

It is unsafe to shoot your gun by mistake while you are attempting to pick it up. I don't care if it hits a target.

You make some good points, and I probably wouldn't argue a dq in the situation described, however I don't see that much of a difference between an unplanned discharge when picking it up vs an unplanned discharge when pointing at targets. Most of us have cooked off an extra round at some point or another, like just before the sights get on target in a transition.

So I might not dq myself if the RO didn't.

Take game out of it for just a second. I did not have control of the gun and I caused a gun to discharge. Ask yourself is that safe for unsafe? All of us have AD'D Into the berm while moving from one target to the next. I do not think that is the same thing. One has been deemed safe by the rule book. The other is undefined and I feel is unsafe.

[StealthyBlagga]

Seems to me that some folks are getting lost in the weeds. It might be useful to go back to basics.

What is the number one priority in every match? Have fun? Be fair to the shooter?

No. The number one priority of the sport should be safety. Everything else comes after that.

I've been shooting a long time. Rules are great, but inadequate in some instances. I know unsafe gun handling when I see it, though it might be difficult to articulate a definitive rule to prevent a particular example.

The individual RO has one very important job; to promote safety. The rules should back up that job to the utmost, and not leave someone with such a (sometimes) difficult job swinging in the wind.

The rule cited in this case is left somewhat vague for a reason, and that is to allow the RO on the spot to exercise a certain degree of discretion.

Almost all NDs occur (mechanical failure notwithstanding) because of shooter error. Almost always they are trying to do something too quickly, without having thought about what they are doing.

I would have great difficulty rewarding a shooter for doing something unsafe when my eyes and experience tell me they did something unsafe. And rules be damned, we have to ask ourselves what is more important; satisfying some letter of the law, or preventing someone from getting hurt or killed.

If I DQ someone for doing something unsafe and they want to make an issue of it, that's just fine, so long as they get the message that I know they did something unsafe, and I won't let them do it again.

Andy

WELL SAID! This perfectly summarizes where I am on this issue. You saved me the trouble of typing my thoughts.

...if your gun is pointed at targets when it goes off, that seems pretty safe to me...

Not if you aren't in control of where the bullet goes. Dumb luck does not make an action safe.

[redwoods]

If the situation of grabbing a loaded gun off a barrel and having it go off by accident before you picked it up or had a hold on it is not a DQ, then USPSA needs to find a way to make it a DQ or find a way to prevent those types of accidents from happening.

I was there and also spoke to the shooter. I agreed with him, after he told me it was accidental and it was a DQ. If a gun goes off while sitting on a barrel or table because you put a finger in the trigger guard and accidently squeezed the trigger then you should be DQed. None of us want to be injured by a gun accidently going off.

Randy

[sharps4070ss]

I was there and also spoke to the shooter. I agreed with him, after he told me it was accidental and it was a DQ. If a gun goes off while sitting on a barrel or table because you put a finger in the trigger guard and accidently squeezed the trigger then you should be DQed. None of us want to be injured by a gun accidently going off.

Randy

I'm afraid that this topic has drifted off course here.

I agree, you SHOULD be DQ'ed....however this particular situation was not positively specified in the rule book under 10.4 as a DQ-able offense.

I felt that I couldn't DQ the shooter if I couldn't site a specific rule to do it.

I wanted to get a group feeling about using 10.5 in this situation, so that I (and others) can be ready for the possible case of a shooter who doesn't own up to the accident and wants to argue "show me the rule".

Lee

[Poppa Bear]

If the situation of grabbing a loaded gun off a barrel and having it go off by accident before you picked it up or had a hold on it is not a DQ, then USPSA needs to find a way to make it a DQ or find a way to prevent those types of accidents from happening.

I was there and also spoke to the shooter. I agreed with him, after he told me it was accidental and it was a DQ. If a gun goes off while sitting on a barrel or table because you put a finger in the trigger guard and accidently squeezed the trigger then you should be DQed. None of us want to be injured by a gun accidently going off.

Randy

They do:

10.4.6 A shot which occurs during movement, except while actually shooting

at targets.

Maybe add a couple of words to it: 10.4.6 A shot which occurs during movement, or while retrieving a loaded handgun from a prop, except while actually shooting

at targets.

[Jim Norman]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Seriously, 10.5 does it, it is a NON-EXCLUSIVE list of examples of why and how you may be DQ'd for Unsafe Gun Handling.

We cannot possibly list every potential action that is unsafe. True enough someone not involved in practical shooting might think that moving and shooting is inherently unsafe and we should all be DQ'd. But we are not discussing that situation. We are discussing real shooters in real match.

One way we look at it is: If your gun goes bang and you look like you just unloaded in your shorts, it was most likely a DQable offense.

There are those that could pick up the gun and by the time it would be off the table 3 inches, they'd be engaging targets AND hitting them, others will pick up the gun and raise it fully to eye level carefully aim and then squeeze off their shot. If the guy in the first instance fires shot one, stops, shakes a bit, then continues, it was not likely a planned shot and hence UNSAFE Gun Handling. If he grabs it and goes, so long as all the rounds are at the targets and all other actions are within safe bounds, then he is good to go. What is UNSAFE in many instances has to do with who is doing what. There are some things we have listed and they are ironclad. 180, Sweeping, round into the ground within 10 feet, round over the berm. Others things like this one are a bit less so and they pretty much need to be in order to address everyone from New to Senior GM.

Understand Unsafe is unsafe, but what is unsafe is the question and that will vary some what and there will be instances that don't quite fit any written definition, but if you saw it, you'd know.

[98sr20ve]

I'm afraid that this topic has drifted off course here.

I agree, you SHOULD be DQ'ed....however this particular situation was not positively specified in the rule book under 10.4 as a DQ-able offense.

I felt that I couldn't DQ the shooter if I couldn't site a specific rule to do it.

I wanted to get a group feeling about using 10.5 in this situation, so that I (and others) can be ready for the possible case of a shooter who doesn't own up to the accident and wants to argue "show me the rule".

Lee

I think it has been a great conversation. I know more about it now then before and I know what I would do if I was the RO and someone said "show me the rule". Others might not agree but I am going to do what I feel is right based on what I saw.

[jmorris]

Situation: Seated in chair behind table, loaded gun on table. Upon start signal, engage targets as they become visible.

At the start signal, the shooter stood up, and while grabbing his gun, he hit the trigger with his middle finger. (Gun was still sitting on the table.) His shot hit a target down range, but he clearly hadn't aimed at it.

Years ago I did the same thing, paused with no word from the RO, picked up the gun and finished. The RO used the hit on the target as some sort of justification for no DQ.

[Neomet]

This is my concern with relying on 10.5 for this. If it can/should be used to DQ the shooter in this instance why would it not be used to DQ a shooter who on drawing pops a round off where the bullet hits 12 feet in front of him and the target is at 50 yards? Also clearly lack of control there as well. Not DQable under 10.4, just as in this instance, but DQing them under 10.5 makes the 10.4 definition moot. While we can call this unsafe gun handling it is an AD, which is of course unsafe gun handling, but ADs are addressed in 10.4.

***NOTE*** I am not saying anything about if I think what the competitor did was safe or not, or what I would like to be able to do. This is just, as the OP points out a question of what the language of the rules state.

[98sr20ve]

This is my concern with relying on 10.5 for this. If it can/should be used to DQ the shooter in this instance why would it not be used to DQ a shooter who on drawing pops a round off where the bullet hits 12 feet in front of him and the target is at 50 yards? Also clearly lack of control there as well. Not DQable under 10.4, just as in this instance, but DQing them under 10.5 makes the 10.4 definition moot. While we can call this unsafe gun handling it is an AD, which is of course unsafe gun handling, but ADs are addressed in 10.4.

***NOTE*** I am not saying anything about if I think what the competitor did was safe or not, or what I would like to be able to do. This is just, as the OP points out a question of what the language of the rules state.

Because that is defined in the rulebook. So no DQ. Causing a gun to fire that you have no control over at all is "unsafe gun handling" in my book. DQ.

Edited June 26, 2012 by 98sr20ve

[motosapiens]

This is my concern with relying on 10.5 for this. If it can/should be used to DQ the shooter in this instance why would it not be used to DQ a shooter who on drawing pops a round off where the bullet hits 12 feet in front of him and the target is at 50 yards? Also clearly lack of control there as well. Not DQable under 10.4, just as in this instance, but DQing them under 10.5 makes the 10.4 definition moot. While we can call this unsafe gun handling it is an AD, which is of course unsafe gun handling, but ADs are addressed in 10.4.

***NOTE*** I am not saying anything about if I think what the competitor did was safe or not, or what I would like to be able to do. This is just, as the OP points out a question of what the language of the rules state.

Because that is defined in the rulebook. So no DQ. Causing a gun to fire that you have no control over at all is "unsafe gun handling" in my book. DQ.

I think you are speculating about having 'no control over at all'. If there were really *no* control, the shot would be much more likely to go somewhere that would be a clear dq, like straight into the ground, over the berm, etc.... IMHO, guns stay pointed downrange precisely when people are exercising control over them.

[Poppa Bear]

This is my concern with relying on 10.5 for this. If it can/should be used to DQ the shooter in this instance why would it not be used to DQ a shooter who on drawing pops a round off where the bullet hits 12 feet in front of him and the target is at 50 yards? Also clearly lack of control there as well. Not DQable under 10.4, just as in this instance, but DQing them under 10.5 makes the 10.4 definition moot. While we can call this unsafe gun handling it is an AD, which is of course unsafe gun handling, but ADs are addressed in 10.4.

***NOTE*** I am not saying anything about if I think what the competitor did was safe or not, or what I would like to be able to do. This is just, as the OP points out a question of what the language of the rules state.

Because that is defined in the rulebook. So no DQ. Causing a gun to fire that you have no control over at all is "unsafe gun handling" in my book. DQ.

I think you are speculating about having 'no control over at all'. If there were really *no* control, the shot would be much more likely to go somewhere that would be a clear dq, like straight into the ground, over the berm, etc.... IMHO, guns stay pointed downrange precisely when people are exercising control over them.

Being as he is the shooter whose actions this thread is based upon I think he knows best if he had any control or not. Jim covered it pretty well, it is usually pretty obvious when the shooter has had an AD. It is just finding the proper rule.

[jmorris]

I would think if a pistol laying on a table was discharged with "no control" of it's recoil, it would break the 180.

[98sr20ve]

This is my concern with relying on 10.5 for this. If it can/should be used to DQ the shooter in this instance why would it not be used to DQ a shooter who on drawing pops a round off where the bullet hits 12 feet in front of him and the target is at 50 yards? Also clearly lack of control there as well. Not DQable under 10.4, just as in this instance, but DQing them under 10.5 makes the 10.4 definition moot. While we can call this unsafe gun handling it is an AD, which is of course unsafe gun handling, but ADs are addressed in 10.4.

***NOTE*** I am not saying anything about if I think what the competitor did was safe or not, or what I would like to be able to do. This is just, as the OP points out a question of what the language of the rules state.

Because that is defined in the rulebook. So no DQ. Causing a gun to fire that you have no control over at all is "unsafe gun handling" in my book. DQ.

I think you are speculating about having 'no control over at all'. If there were really *no* control, the shot would be much more likely to go somewhere that would be a clear dq, like straight into the ground, over the berm, etc.... IMHO, guns stay pointed downrange precisely when people are exercising control over them.

It was me who fired the shot. I know I did not have control over the handgun. It either hit the barrel edge and ricocheted into the target or the gun was lifted just enough to hit the target. It looked like a clean hit to me. But who knows. Neither means I had control over the gun.

Edited June 26, 2012 by 98sr20ve

[98sr20ve]

I would think if a pistol laying on a table was discharged with "no control" of it's recoil, it would break the 180.

The slide did not cycle to eject the brass. It did not spin.

[Carmoney]

One way we look at it is: If your gun goes bang and you look like you just unloaded in your shorts, it was most likely a DQable offense.

Your opinion might be a perfectly valid point of view, Jim, but it is definitely not reflected in the current USPSA rule book. The rule book clearly defines what is, and what is not, a DQable accidental discharge. There are many times that action competition shooters pop off a round when they are not quite ready for it to happen, but as long as the shot is fired in a safe direction, it is not necessarily unsafe, and it is not necessarily a DQable offense. This is why the rulebook explicitly describes what constitutes an "accidental discharge" that results in a DQ. A gun that is pointed in a safe direction when it goes off, whether as a result of a fully aimed and intentional shot, or a trigger that is prepped a little too early by an adrenalized competitor, is NEVER GOING TO CAUSE HARM TO ANYONE, and is not cause for a DQ under our current rule book, assuming the situation doesn't meet any of the delineated scenarios listed in 10.4.

Seriously, it's that simple.

There are many valid reasons why we have a rulebook that relies on objective criteria. Our rulebook is the product of 30+ years of practical experience in this particular game. For those who wish to attempt to look inside the hearts and souls of fellow competitors and figure out their subjective mindset on a close call.....well, there are other games with different sets of rules that may be more in keeping with your position.

This is a USPSA rules question. With regard to a questionable shot fired by a competitor during the competition, the proper rule to consult is 10.4. The question is not difficult to resolve when that rule is objectively applied.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Carmoney

[jmorris]

The slide did not cycle to eject the brass. It did not spin.

. I would say your correct in your assumption it hit a barrel or something in that case. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If it stayed put either a bullet didnt come out or something absorbed the energy. In any case looks like your fine with the DQ so live, learn and keep the bugger hook off of the bang button until your ready.

[remoandiris]

This is a USPSA rules question. With regard to a questionable shot fired by a competitor during the competition, the proper rule to consult is 10.4. The question is not difficult to resolve when that rule is objectively applied.

Once 10.4 and it's sub paragraphs were exhausted, this discussion changed from AD to unsafe gun handling...the whole "but not limited to" part of 10.5.

[DarthMuffin]

Today at a local match we had a accidental discharge and I was trying to find the rule to issue a match DQ.

Situation:

Seated in chair behind table, loaded gun on table.

Upon start signal, engage targets as they become visible.

At the start signal, the shooter stood up, and while grabbing his gun, he hit the trigger with his middle finger.

(Gun was still sitting on the table.)

His shot hit a target down range, but he clearly hadn't aimed at it.

The best rule for a match DQ we could find would be 10.5 (Unsafe Gun Handling)

For the record, the shooter was not arguing against a DQ, he felt that he clearly made a mistake (in fact, he stayed and helped for the rest of the day, a real class move on his part, ).

Can anybody find a better (or more applicable) rule?

Lee

We had this same scenario happen with a shooter on our squad at 2010 Nationals. When gun was grabbed, it went off and shot went through hard cover (a playing card) and continued on to a valid target. Match official (not sure if CRO or MD) was called over and eventually they determined it wasn't a DQ. However, our shooter wasn't admitting (or denying either) that it was an AD.

Edited June 27, 2012 by DarthMuffin

[Jim Norman]

One way we look at it is: If your gun goes bang and you look like you just unloaded in your shorts, it was most likely a DQable offense.

Your opinion might be a perfectly valid point of view, Jim, but it is definitely not reflected in the current USPSA rule book. The rule book clearly defines what is, and what is not, a DQable accidental discharge. There are many times that action competition shooters pop off a round when they are not quite ready for it to happen, but as long as the shot is fired in a safe direction, it is not necessarily unsafe, and it is not necessarily a DQable offense. This is why the rulebook explicitly describes what constitutes an "accidental discharge" that results in a DQ. A gun that is pointed in a safe direction when it goes off, whether as a result of a fully aimed and intentional shot, or a trigger that is prepped a little too early by an adrenalized competitor, is NEVER GOING TO CAUSE HARM TO ANYONE, and is not cause for a DQ under our current rule book, assuming the situation doesn't meet any of the delineated scenarios listed in 10.4.

Seriously, it's that simple.

There are many valid reasons why we have a rulebook that relies on objective criteria. Our rulebook is the product of 30+ years of practical experience in this particular game. For those who wish to attempt to look inside the hearts and souls of fellow competitors and figure out their subjective mindset on a close call.....well, there are other games with different sets of rules that may be more in keeping with your position.

This is a USPSA rules question. With regard to a questionable shot fired by a competitor during the competition, the proper rule to consult is 10.4. The question is not difficult to resolve when that rule is objectively applied.

IF the shot goes into a target or at least in the general area of a target fine, but then again USGH is NOT the same call as an AD. An AD is more narrowly defined. USGH has more latitude for those times when a shooter brain farts. There are examples given but they are not exclusive. If the shooter stops, shakes, does a WTF etc, then in all probability is is/was USGH that occurred here. Not a definite indicator, but certainly an indicator. We'd all know it when we saw it.

[Sarge]

We had this same scenario happen with a shooter on our squad at 2010 Nationals. When gun was grabbed, it went off and shot went through hard cover (a playing card) and continued on to a valid target. Match official (not sure if CRO or MD) was called over and eventually they determined it wasn't a DQ. However, our shooter wasn't admitting (or denying either) that it was an AD.

Smart call on his part. This is more typical. This isn't golf.