From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On the other matter of ND vs AD, I am of the opinion
> that there are only two properly defined discharges:
> Negligent and defective, with the latter attributed to a
> defective component of the any part of the arm or the
> ammunition. The former needs no explanation.
I can accept a failure of ammunition that is resonably beyond
the shooters control (unless perhaps he didn't excersise due
care when re-loading it), but I still find it difficult to accept
equipment faliures. Anyone who uses a Firearm should be
competant in the operation and care of the particular Firearm
he is using so as to know that it is functioning properly. If you
are using a faulty gun any unintended discharges are ND's
NOT AD's. Moreover, in the case of Police or military use,
*no* Firearms should be issued unless it is fit for service on
the particular day and it should also be checked by the person
using it. If the officer concerned hasn't checked it it's his Fault,
not the Gun's.
J.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
