DonR101395
New member
I want to join. I work hard at my pomposity and it gets no recognition!
WildandpedantictooAlaska
You better get to working on it WA. I see you more into the pot stirrers club
+1 WM nicely stated
I want to join. I work hard at my pomposity and it gets no recognition!
WildandpedantictooAlaska
This point that you keep making about the gun being designed with 5 and not 4 chambers is ridiculous. It can hold and fire 5 shots without problem. It is perfectly fine to load six rounds into the gun and fire them.
I see you more into the pot stirrers club
What is there to addressYou didn't address this. It pretty severely rips your main stated example to shreds.
All I see is someone calling names again with little to back it upThis point that you keep making about the gun being designed with 5 and not 4 chambers is ridiculous. It can hold and fire 5 shots without problem. It is perfectly fine to load six rounds into the gun and fire them.
This point that you keep making about the gun being designed with 5 and not 4 chambers is ridiculous. It can hold and fire 5 shots without problem. It is perfectly fine to load six {should have read 5}rounds into the gun and fire them.
All I see is someone calling names again with little to back it up
And who said this and when, I can't find it
post#110 The gun is designed to hold five rounds.
The FA as do all SAA clones, takes the extraordinary precaution of only loading four in a particular pattern make it safe
post#115The gun is manufactured to hold five rounds not four, a flaw in the design requires that the gun be loaded with a reduced number of rounds to make the it safe
post#149The gun is designed to carry five rounds. True?
In order to make the gun safe you must not load it with five rounds but must instead only load four True?
post#154If it were not an extra ordinary precaution then all revolvers would be loaded this was and/or there would not be a hole where number five is supposed to go.
post#175No you are helping them to cover up the known flaw in their gun, The gun was designed to hold five rounds, to argue otherwise is disengenuous and absurd, in other words your style
Well now I have to call someone a liar, show me whereFor starters it is you that started calling people stupid.
Please show me where I have said differentlyThe point is Joab that carrying the gun with all 6 for the SSA or 5 in the FA can be done safely so long as the hammer isn't manipulated or the gun dropped on the hammer. The gun will never fire unless this action happens.
Ah yes the whineful cry of the haplessoab is right. The legless man should have won millions for FA's obvious wrong doing that caused said legless man to violate the main safety rule FA demandes. This violation had nothing to do with the accident it was FA's fault.
This violation had nothing to do with the accident it was FA's fault.
Quote:
For starters it is you that started calling people stupid.
Well now I have to call someone a liar, show me where
Don
You again are arguing from emotion and making yourself look dumb
If the gun cannot be safely carried with the intended five rounds then the extraordinary (sorry guys I just don't know a dumb down word to use instead,) precaution of loading in a pattern that leaves the round under the chamber must be taken to allow the safe handling of the gun even while following the four rules. That by definition is extraordinary. I'm sorry to be blunt guys but if you are too dumb to get that by now then you are to dumb to participate in this adult discussion
I'll make it as short bus as I can here,
Typical simplistic statement by someone who cannot back up their argument and runs when asked to
Invisible heart disagrees with me
The difference is that he can intelligently present his point of view in an adult manner
I figured the reading comprehension requirements for the last statement would prove difficult here
I'll see if I can help
How do you define extraordinary measures? Is common sence one of them? I mean I am asking an honest question. Common sense says if the hammer strikes a live round it is going to go bang.. I still fail to see how the company is liable. The gun functioned exactly how the maker sad it would. The fact that the owner did not fully understand the operation of the firearm is not their fault. Of course had he been practising the 3 BASIC rules of gun saftey none of this would have happened. I suppose the fact he violated the first 3 rules of gun saftey is the gun makers fault too?Then why must extraordinary measures be taken to make the gun safe to carry?
How do you define extraordinary measures?
Never said I didn't return fire I said that you were lying when you saidNow lets see if you are man enough to apologize for calling me a liar.
Now lets see if you are man enough to act like a manFor starters it is you that started calling people stupid.
I have explained this many time in this discussion, but I don't blame you for not wanting to wade through the many simplistic post to get to itHow do you define extraordinary measures?
Actually there are four and "make sure your gun is not in a holster when you take your coat off "is not one of them.Of course had he been practising the 3 BASIC rules of gun saftey none of this would have happened. I suppose the fact he violated the first 3 rules of gun saftey is the gun makers fault too?
Is a stick shift designed to be operated while talking on the phone.Next thing you know, auto makers will be sued for people having accidents in manual shift vehicles because of the extraordinary measures required to drive it and shift gears while talking on the cell phone. Derrr they shoulda known I'd need to talk on my phone.
If this thread is any indication many areAre people losing the ability to think for themselves?
The gun is manufactured to hold five rounds not four, a flaw in the design requires that the gun be loaded with a reduced number of rounds to make the it safe
Next thing you know, auto makers will be sued for people having accidents in manual shift vehicles because of the extraordinary measures required to drive it and shift gears while talking on the cell phone....
joab said:Most of gun owners I know would have a full working knowledge of how their guns work also, but apparently this guy did not run in our circles.
The company produced a gun that they sold to the general public, not just uor friends
The flaw was known and easily correctable this cost them $300000
Wildalaska said:Quote:
It affects producers (e.g. FA) by raising the price of product which it sells.
Thats factored into tort liability. the cheaper the cost of modification, the higher liability will be. FA could fix the problem for a nominal (in tort terms) cost.
Quote:
However, its greatest cost to the society as a whole lies in unseen products which never makes it to the market because the potential cost of litigation is too high.
BS...give me an example.
2003 Trial Lawyers said:Congress in 1986 saved the few remaining vaccine manufacturers from near bankruptcy by shielding them from lawsuits (vaccines inevitably cause side effects in some of the recipients).
Wildalaska said:Quote:
But here is one simple way to think about it: malpractice insurance for OBGYN specialists is astronomical. For state w/o cap compared to state with cap (e.g. Florida), all things considered, it's more attractive for OBGYN specialists and more OBGYN doctors will probably consider practicing there.
Now is that the fault of the tort system, or of incompetant docs?\