Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit
- Thread starter guntime22
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
Bet it has already happened. No one hears about settlements.
Havent we had more than one injury AD with a Glock out there in gun land? Do you consider Glock a "safe" design? Think a NY Trigger is just for stressfire?
WildandimnotjustpickinonglockAlaska
You contradicted yourself in post 218 with the Glock example. A better safer design exists.....its called the XD. Had a twig pulled the trigger on the XD guess what nothing happens. Still you say if the Glock was carried properly............the same thing applies to the FA.
Problem is Joab the consumer assumes those "design flaws" upon purchase of a gun with..........."design flaws". You keep saying that the "design flaw" is to blame and that is my problem with your posts. Nobody here is arguing that the gun won't go bang if the hammer is pulled back slightly then released or if the gun is dropped on the hammer. We just understand that for 90 years if the user had an accident with this gun it was his fault. Nowadays its the guns fault. The gun is the same so the thinking has changed. People aren't accepting responsibility for their actions anymore. Pretty sad indeed and I'm done.
Problem is Joab the consumer assumes those "design flaws" upon purchase of a gun with..........."design flaws". You keep saying that the "design flaw" is to blame and that is my problem with your posts. Nobody here is arguing that the gun won't go bang if the hammer is pulled back slightly then released or if the gun is dropped on the hammer. We just understand that for 90 years if the user had an accident with this gun it was his fault. Nowadays its the guns fault. The gun is the same so the thinking has changed. People aren't accepting responsibility for their actions anymore. Pretty sad indeed and I'm done.
theinvisibleheart
New member
Glock NY trigger?
I thought NY trigger was done at the request of NYPD?
Here is something interesting about agency AD/ND data. I heard from friends who are at different agencies that when they transitioned from double action revolvers to pistols, they had a lot more AD/ND due to shorter trigger stroke and lighter trigger pull.
It's not technologically hard to make all pistols be DAO and all Glock be NYPD trigger type. In fact, if that happened, most probably, AD/ND will decrease, all things being equal. For single action guns like 1911A1, Para-Ordnance type LDA trigger but with heavy trigger can also be done(but make sure that every trigger pull, not only the first one, is a long, heavy trigger pull).
Is this good or bad? It depends on your POV. But it is easily doable (DAO version of various common pistols do exist) and putting NYPD trigger on Glock is very, very easy.
My POV is that product safety should not be enforced via litigation. It should be done via market. If people want different or more safety features, then either the OEM or after market parts provider will offer it. SFS is one example.
--John
Wildalaska said:
I thought NY trigger was done at the request of NYPD?
Here is something interesting about agency AD/ND data. I heard from friends who are at different agencies that when they transitioned from double action revolvers to pistols, they had a lot more AD/ND due to shorter trigger stroke and lighter trigger pull.
It's not technologically hard to make all pistols be DAO and all Glock be NYPD trigger type. In fact, if that happened, most probably, AD/ND will decrease, all things being equal. For single action guns like 1911A1, Para-Ordnance type LDA trigger but with heavy trigger can also be done(but make sure that every trigger pull, not only the first one, is a long, heavy trigger pull).
Is this good or bad? It depends on your POV. But it is easily doable (DAO version of various common pistols do exist) and putting NYPD trigger on Glock is very, very easy.
My POV is that product safety should not be enforced via litigation. It should be done via market. If people want different or more safety features, then either the OEM or after market parts provider will offer it. SFS is one example.
--John
The jury found that it was the design team that fell asleep at the wheel
The attorney was successful in getting the award reduced to $300,00 instead of the $10,000,000 the plaintiff was seeking
No, but once again you fail the reading comprehension portion of the exercise
See the difference
No I still say (repeatedly) if it is carried as it is designed to be carried
And talk about contradictions
I guess you don't want to talk about your own contradictions, that's why you refuse to address post 187
You wouldn't be trying to distance yourself from that flip flop would you?
Wouldn't that be dishonest?
But I guess it does answer the question of whether you are man enough to act like a man though
No I don't I have specifically stated that it was the choice to us a design with a known and easily correctable flaw that is to blame
Yo just choose to infer that I am putting all the blame on the flaw
Now which one of us is it that lacks the capacity for critical thinking
You keep harping back to 90 years ago ( although the design of the FA is much younger and more unsafe than the old SAA)
I keep saying that we do not live in a 90 years ago world, a quick glance at a calender and the girls on the TV wearing G-strings will confirm that if you aren't sure, you keep ignoring that fact because it doesn't fit into your emotional argument of righteous indignation
As I have said before, but you have chosen to ignore because it doesn't suit your need to argue, any CEO that does not protect the company and it's share holders is negligent in his duties
I blame the company for creating a product ripe for litigation when a simple fix was available
That is the world we live in.
A world of lukewarm litigation proof coffee and $54,000,000 pants
Anyone that leaves themselves open to lawsuit of this nature in that environment earns what they get
The guy also did not violate any of the 4 (or 3) basic rules of gun handling, I sick of that twist also
He had the friggin gun in his holster
Somebody tell which of the BASIC RULES of gun handling does that violate
The FA take an EXTRA step beyond the ORDINARY four (or three) rules argue against that
your 187 waffle is still waiting threegun
Be a man and address your flip flop or at least tell which side you are on now.
NOT A CHANCE THREEGUN
You started this in open forum we will continue this in open forum
You are not going to twist your way out in PM
Nowhere have I admitted that Glocks require any special care
If so where?
And most guns are unsafe to carry unholstered
We have had many discussions on this board concerning Mexican carry and the stupidity of it
Where have I said that guns were not designed to be carried holstered?
And pray tell what extraordinary precaution (funny you like that word in PMs) does Glock require to holster the gun, keeping your finger off the trigger?
Isn't that one of those four rules we always talk about
Now I know why you made this one out of sight
AND 187 IS STILL WAITING WAFFLE BOY
You started this in open forum we will continue this in open forum
You are not going to twist your way out in PM
Nowhere have I admitted that Glocks require any special care
If so where?
And most guns are unsafe to carry unholstered
We have had many discussions on this board concerning Mexican carry and the stupidity of it
Where have I said that guns were not designed to be carried holstered?
And pray tell what extraordinary precaution (funny you like that word in PMs) does Glock require to holster the gun, keeping your finger off the trigger?
Isn't that one of those four rules we always talk about
Now I know why you made this one out of sight
AND 187 IS STILL WAITING WAFFLE BOY
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
This is just stupid. 8 pages of this thread already. I quess MY QUESTION has indeed been answered. Common sence is dead. If you snag the hammer of a revolver IT WILL GO BANG. Why is this concept so hard for some people to grasp? The transfer bar is neither here nor there. As the saying goes to make something idiot proof you only serve to create a smarter idiot. He THE USER should have known that his coat would interfere with the firearm. If he was incapable of using the firearm safely he should not have had one.
True, but FA will now have to change its design or face further lawsuits, Thats the problem. 10 mil isn't fun to pay, but how much will a redesign and retool cost. Probably alot more.
There are hoards of SA revolvers with solid firing pins. This isn't a design defect, its a mechanism thats specifically sought out by consumers for a variety of reasons. This is a argument that FA should have put out there. Because of this decision all of these other makers are now in jeopardy of suffering the same fate.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
And your point?? There Rugers, a different brand. The old GM trucks could be started without a key if the driver forgot to take the "extrordinary effort" to put the key in "lock" position. That doesn't mean you could do the same with Ford.
Wildalaska
Moderator
That ignores the nature of capitalism.
By the way this is all academinc because NONE of us here know what the verdict was based on
WildheymaybeweshouldfindoutAlaska
Perhaps it was
And then the plaintiff countered by pointing out that the design of the FA was abandoned by Ruger ten years before the first FA hit the market
The those compaies still making SAAs are abandoning the traditional design in favor of the cheap fix of transfer bars and hammer block safeties.
They have been in that same jeopardy since 1973 when Ruger pointed out the design flaw and fixed it
The FA was based on the Ruger BlackHawk design
They had to discard the transfer bar in the first place
That was a severe lack of foreward thinking on their part
Based on the same design, the difference is the transfer bar that you claim is neither here not there
Then an intelligent person would not make the comment that if you don't out the key in lock on any truck it will start without a key
You made that same comment in regard to REVOLVERS
If you are not going to remember your own points how are you going to counter anyone else's
But at least you are starting to get the definition of extraordinary
If putting the key in the lock position is beyond what is ordinary for securing a vehicle, in that it is unique to that particular design, then it would indeed be an extra ordinary effort
Don't believe me? Look it up
But then I think you were trying to be sarcastic
You are missing the point. A SAA without a transfer bar is NOT a design flaw. It is a particular system that some consumers prefer. The very reason I haven't bought a ruger is because I don't want a transfer bar messing up the works.
There are endless companies that make transfer bar revolvers and if someone wants one they can have it. However if someone is a purist, or wants a very very nice trigger pull then they are going to choose a traditional gun. A defect in a product is something that a consumer doesn't want. Consumers want traditional firing pins and actions. This type of system isn't a defect.
With all of the lawyer labels in the manual about downloading, the variety of the arguments in support of having a pistol like this, and the presumption regarding firearms, someone on the defense team screwed up.
Why do you think that is
Their CEOs properly preform their duty to protect the company and it's shareholders from financial loss due to negligence
The deign of the FA, which differs slightly from the design of the SAA has been proven to be unsafe to the point that the originator of that design not only abandoned the design but offered in perpetuity to make any of the guns made previously safe under the new system. This is historical verifiable fact
The plaintif did not want that defect in his firearm
The system has been flawed since it's inception, that is why one chamber must be left empty making the gun use only 80% of it's potential, that is a flaw by any standard
The jury obviously took the warnings into consideration, they also took into consideration that the warnings would not be necessary if the design had been made safe by an easily available, cheap and proven method
I have missed no point in fact I have stated and stood by my point over and over, just because my point is the opposite of your point does not mean I missed anything any more than you have missed anything
Serious question
How doe the transfer bar mess up the works
I honestly do not feel any difference between the gun I have now and what I remember from many years ago
My Vaquero is actually much much smoother than my Cattlemen, it just doesn't have the gratifying sound of the four clicks
But I understand the new transfer barred offering do
theinvisibleheart
New member
WA/Ken, ? capitalism
What is the nature of capitalism? Does it include litigation? How does litigation help capitalism?
What is capitalism?
Most of the posts were based on the nature of the claim. Whether it made sense to sue FA based on product design and usage.
--John
Wildalaska said:
What is the nature of capitalism? Does it include litigation? How does litigation help capitalism?
What is capitalism?
WildAlaska said:
Most of the posts were based on the nature of the claim. Whether it made sense to sue FA based on product design and usage.
--John
Thats not necessarily true. The plaintiff could have very well purchased the FA because of the particular action.
One persons flaw is another persons jewel. Thats why in the day and age of fuel injection, holley and edelbrock still make millions selling carburetors. Furthermore, loading 5 is only for carry and not for use. These are not defensive pistols, these are plinking pistols, target shooters and possibly hunting pistols. If a person desires a pistol that is safe with 6 rounds then they have that option. If a person buys an FA pistol then they do so with the warning that carry with 6 isn't safe.
Because YOU disagree with it doesn't mean that there are many consumers that prefer a non transfer bar SA. Hoards of people in SASS use these firearms. Collecters purchase these firearms specifically because you have to load 5. This is the issue you are missing. There is a market specifically for non-transfer bar pistols. By definition, something cannot be a design flaw when it is something consumers specifically request.
Thats because the defense let the plaintiff frame the argument. If this is what truly happened then FA started out in a hole. One of the first things they teach you in practical lawyering 101 is being able to frame the argument. If you can do this successfully and get the jurors thinking in this frame of mind, the other side is going to have to do twice the work just to break even.
Personally I have several reasons. First, on principle I don't usually purchase things that have been adjusted solely in response to litigation. Secondly, I like simple effective designs. They are easier to break down, easier to maintain and easier to improve. For the same reason I don't buy series 80 1911's I only purchase traditional SA revolvers. If you take a hi-power and remove the mag disconnect everything feels much better. The same with the transfer bar. Its feels like an SA should.
Finally, there is also an appearance issue. One of the reasons that older S&W revolvers have gone up in value is because they don't have the lock. In 99% of the cases the S&W lock has no effect on performance. However there is still a gaping hole in the side of the firearm. Similarly, I really don't like seeing a hammer without a firing pin or some ridiculous bar in between the firing channel.
Most importantly, unlike probably many members here I've actually done several hundred miles on horseback with a SA rig. Surprisingly I stll ahve all my fingers and toes. Any idiot who has spent more than 5 minutes around these types of guns understands that you don't load 6. Its in every western movie, its joked about, and its almost common knowledge. Its so bad sometimes that I've seen people WITH a transfer bar load 5 when carrying.
The important thing isn't whether everyone agrees with all of this. The important thing is that the defense team had hoards of things to work with and 2 burdens in their favor. Thats a lopsided battle.
In a nutshell, that is my argument. I do not ride a horse with my FA 83, but I have ridden many miles on a 4-wheeler with it. Surprise, surprise, no unwanted bullets left the barrel. Everyone who spends some time around the single-action revolvers KNOWS what you can and cannot do. Load one, skip one, load the rest is common practice.
In addition, FA did not have a "design team" to do the FA 83 design, so FA should not be faulted for choosing the single-action platform. The original concept that Dick Casull ran with was a magnum Model P. And Casull started long before the Ruger New Model Blackhawk was a twinkle in Bill Ruger's eye. I believe Casull was experimenting in the 1950's, blowing up more than a few Model P's in the process. FA characterized the gun for production once Casull had created his monster magnum. Casull's real work was with the five-shot cylinder and creating the cartridge. He tried some real wild things for the time, such as duplex powder loads. He also learned that the pressures demanded tight tolerances, which is where FA entered the picture.
FA's real contribution is the precision manufacturing. No one else in the industry holds the tolerances that FA does outside of one-man smith shops. FA made the design able to be manufactured.
Still, FA lost the lawsuit, and I suspect the FA 83 will be retired and replaced with the FA 07, which will be the FA 83 with a transfer bar.
Edward429451
Moderator
Thats speculation. You don't know if the jury examined the manual.
- Status