What is not in the rulebook….

[TaterHead]

…. that we all think is there.

 

”180”, “grease ring”, anything else?

[shred]

"benefit of the doubt"

 

Most things people think are Level 1 exceptions.

 

("grease mark" is in 9.5.5)

[Sarge]

Don’t be a Dick is not in there.

[DIYguy]

"Failure to engage"

[shred]

"break the perf"

 

[Joe4d]

half of so called "rulings" from NROI

 

[RJH]

About half to 3/4 of the range commands I hear

[happygunner77]

Shoot, go ahead, load and make ready. 

Range is safe. 

[ltdmstr]

Negligent discharge.  Seems like a lot of people (mainly youtube and tacticool crowd) want to use it instead of AD.

[outerlimits]

"do you understand the course of fire?"

[Robertwil18]

.

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Robertwil18

[broadside72]

23 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

Negligent discharge.  Seems like a lot of people (mainly youtube and tacticool crowd) want to use it instead of AD.

No such thing as an AD, only an ND. Someone, somewhere along the process messed something up or didn't maintain something that in the end caused the discharge.

 

Just like there are no automobile accidents, only automobile collisions.

[ltdmstr]

48 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

No such thing as an AD, only an ND. Someone, somewhere along the process messed something up or didn't maintain something that in the end caused the discharge.

 

Really?  You might want to look up the definition of negligence, because what you posted absolutely isn't it.  And I can give you a bunch of examples of ADs that absolutely don't involve negligence.  Some of which don't even warrant a DQ in USPSA competition.

[Racinready300ex]

34 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

 

Really?  You might want to look up the definition of negligence, because what you posted absolutely isn't it.  And I can give you a bunch of examples of ADs that absolutely don't involve negligence.  Some of which don't even warrant a DQ in USPSA competition.

 

negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something.

 

accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

 

What are the examples? I've seen guns double due to malfunctions, that'd be a AD. Every DQ that comes to mind has been a ND really. Maybe these is something I'm missing. Was it 320's? 

 

[ltdmstr]

Jus

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

negligent - failing to take proper care in doing something.

 

accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

 

What are the examples? I've seen guns double due to malfunctions, that'd be a AD. Every DQ that comes to mind has been a ND really. Maybe these is something I'm missing. Was it 320's? 

 

 

Not looking to start a long discussion here as it's off topic, and mods seem to get upset whenever this comes up.  But the actual definition of negligence is a bit more complicated than that.  It is a breach of a standard of care expected of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances.  Or, for our purposes, we can use an experienced shooter.  And in the shooting sports, or ours at least, unintentional discharges of firearms are not that uncommon.  But, many (most ?) do not involve negligence.  Examples of some that do, would be an unintentional discharge during movement due to the shooter's finger being on the trigger.  Or having a finger on the trigger resulting in a discharge when reloading.  These are specific violations of the rules and clearly breach the expected standard of care.  That's why you get the DQ badge.  But, how about when a shooter's 1911/2011 doubles or goes full auto due to a fatigued sear spring?  Clearly that's an AD, or multiple ADs, but there's no negligence on the part of the shooter.  And, assuming safe gun handling, etc., there's no DQ.  Same thing when a shooter puts a round in the dirt by firing before the gun is on target.  Clearly an AD, but no negligence, and no DQ unless it's within 10 feet of the shooter.  As per the rules, that's not a breach of the expected standard of care.  So, while comments like "there's no such thing as an AD, only ND," might sound cool on youtube and Instagram, they just aren't accurate.

Edited April 3, 2023 by ltdmstr

[Sarge]

4 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

Jus

 

Not looking to start a long discussion here as it's off topic, and mods seem to get upset whenever this comes up.  But the actual definition of negligence is a bit more complicated than that.  It is a breach of a standard of care expected of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances.  Or, for our purposes, we can use an experienced shooter.  And in the shooting sports, or ours at least, unintentional discharges of firearms are not that uncommon.  But, many (most ?) do not involve negligence.  Examples of some that do, would be an unintentional discharge during movement due to the shooter's finger being on the trigger.  Or having a finger on the trigger resulting in a discharge when reloading.  These are specific violations of the rules and clearly breach the expected standard of care.  That's why you get the DQ badge.  But, how about when a shooter's 1911/2011 doubles or goes full auto due to a fatigued sear spring?  Clearly that's an AD, or multiple ADs, but there's no negligence on the part of the shooter.  And, assuming safe gun handling, etc., there's no DQ.  Same thing when a shooter puts a round in the dirt by firing before the gun is on target.  Clearly an AD, but no negligence, and no DQ unless it's within 10 feet of the shooter.  As per the rules, that's not a breach of the expected standard of care.  So, while comments like "there's no such thing as an AD, only ND," might sound cool on youtube and Instagram, they just aren't accurate.

Agreed!

[Joe4d]

18 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

 

.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Joe4d

[ltdmstr]

It's not unsafe if the gun is pointed down range and the round goes into the ground vs. a wall, over the berm or something else.  That's why the rules specifically provide that it's not a DQable offense.  Whether you like it or not, the rules set the standard of care for competitors.  And, under the rules, an AD into the ground >10 feet specifically is not a DQable offense (absent some other factor that warrants the DQ).  That means, per se, no negligence.  So, you can call it whatever you want, depending on how you feel about it, but it's not negligence.

[rtkwe]

To get back on topic from the perennial fire that is AD vs ND… The 180 is there it’s just worded differently but if you take both directions of 90 in 10.5.2 into account it is the 180.

[thermobollocks]

Inappropriate discharge.

[Joe4d]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:15 AM, ltdmstr said:

It's not unsafe if the gun is pointed down range and the round goes into the ground vs. a wall, over the berm or something else.  That's why the rules specifically provide that it's not a DQable offense.  Whether you like it or not, the rules set the standard of care for competitors.  And, under the rules, an AD into the ground >10 feet specifically is not a DQable offense (absent some other factor that warrants the DQ).  That means, per se, no negligence.  So, you can call it whatever you want, depending on how you feel about it, but it's not negligence.

Laughable a seemingly coherent sane individual would actually try to make an argument that lighting off a round when you didnt mean to isnt unsafe .  Yes I am aware whats in the rulebook, also laughable.
Lighting the round off is negligence, where it lands and whether or not it kills someone or results in a DQ is pure luck. 
seems Oxford, websters, etc seems to agree with what I am calling negligence. 
 

[ltdmstr]

8 hours ago, Joe4d said:

Laughable a seemingly coherent sane individual would actually try to make an argument that lighting off a round when you didnt mean to isnt unsafe .  Yes I am aware whats in the rulebook, also laughable.
Lighting the round off is negligence, where it lands and whether or not it kills someone or results in a DQ is pure luck. 
seems Oxford, websters, etc seems to agree with what I am calling negligence. 

 

You might want to go and actually read the definition of negligence in OED, Webster's, and/or Black's.  Because none of those agree with what you're saying.

[RJH]

Well, I'm beginning to wonder if there's a double secret probation rule book it says you can't call Ds dicks