Talk:Negligent discharge

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Firearms

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles

Untitled

I changed the comment about the US Army using the term accidental discharge and moved it into the list of organizations who do in fact use that term. The United States Army now considers an Accidental Discharge to be a Negligent Discharge, and the term has entered its operational lexicon. In fact, its the fastest way for soldiers to be charged under Article 15 and be struck for cause from their post (particaully officers).

Accidental and negligent discharges

The WP article on Accidental discharge was deleted because it was a copyright violation. I sat down to write a new, clean version. However it seems to me that there's no clear distinction between accidental and negligent discharges and so it'd be best to cover them in one article. I'm not sure which title should be used however. Does anyone have any views on the matter? Rezin (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I turns out that it wasn't a copyright violation after all. (The other source had copied from Wikipedia instead.) However I still think it'd be best to merge these two articles. Rezin (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]