Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[joab]

Either way its your assumption that this revolver was intended to be carried with 6 and neither one of knows whether that is the case.

I guess it is just my opinion that there are six holes in the cylinder that accept the round intended for the gun, further it is only my opinion that the hammer will impact the round in each of these with the required force to cause the round to fire
And we are not talking about Sam Colts design we are talking about Gary Reeder's (?) design. He had resources not available to Col Sam

According to you. See above.

Are you saying that it is merely my opinion that the 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked?
If so you're joking, right?

I never claimed that the defense team was a bunch of idiots. I said that I was very surprised at the verdict since they had a bunch of things in their favor from the get go.

I realize this, but given the really high standard for firearms, the attorneys for FA must have been asleep at the wheel.

Either they sucked, or thought they had it in the bag.

Paint it however you want you definitely questioned their competency

As far as there being an advantage to the non transfer design this is the THIRD and last time I'm answering your question. Its easier to disassemble, its easier to work on and its less susceptible to malfunction. These are strictly technical elements and they wholly ignore the issue of consumers wanting an authentic revolver.

I must have missed the SECOND time you answered, but the first only vaguely resembles this
But it is not easier to disassemble or work on and the transfer bar is no more susceptible to breakage than an exposed firing pin.
I have done all of these things, which is advised against in those instructions you hold so highly
Again you offer weak speculation as to why people buy the gun Why couldn't it be simply that they want a gun capable of blowing a man's leg off and are merely settling for for the design offered


The below version does not answer the question of actual advantage of a non transfer bar design it simply says that you don't personally like them for personal reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the actual design

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.

My comparisons to other designs have been to show you that your argument is legally flawed, and after leading you to the waterhole I can see your mouth is still dry.

Well, after getting to that waterhole I find it to be a toilet
You offer nothing but what would be called speculation if I was being generous, most of which is easily disputed through common sense and at best is simple inductive leaps

I doubt you'd make it on my jury.

I realize that lawyers prefer uninformed people on the jury then complain about getting them later, but it give them someone to blame when their speculative arguments don't pan outBut exactly how much of a conversation do you believe we would have during jury selection? You are really a lawyer aren't you

And this is why attorneys pull their hair out at night. If this is a products liability case, the implied warranty of merchantability has nothing to do with anything. That warranty guarantees that goods are reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose. Its beyond all argument that this revolver was reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose BECAUSE ITS ORDINARY PURPOSE DID NOT INCLUDE BEING CARRIED WITH 6. Apples meet oranges.

Then how come they got them 5 holes there (we're talking about the FA orange not the SAA apple here)

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that the gun was not designed to carry to it full design capacity and that guns are exempt from safety protocols because they are inherently dangerous
neither of these are washing
The gun is obviously design to hold a full load of five rounds
And by your other reasoning Remington could come out with a line of Damascus shotguns next year and Olin could start loading the .45LC to full capacity without fear of liability

Merchants have a responsibility to produce products safe for the general public to use if they don't they can be held accountable in one way or another
CEOs should know this and protect their companies and shareholders in a responsible manner

 

[threegun]

I guess it is just my opinion that there are six holes in the cylinder that accept the round intended for the gun, further it is only my opinion that the hammer will impact the round in each of these with the required force to cause the round to fire
And we are not talking about Sam Colts design we are talking about Gary Reeder's (?) design. He had resources not available to Col Sam

So what. You keep harping on the fact that the gun has 6 holes..........it makes no difference. The gun can hold six. It can even be carried with six although the factory says doing so could allow for an AD. Can you comprehend this dude. If I put the gun in my holster loaded with six it won't magically go off. Only if the user does something to make the hammer move back or if dropped is there a problem and only if the hammer is resting on a live round. To remedy this act from causing an AD the factory recommends carrying on an empty cylinder.

Merchants have a responsibility to produce products safe for the general public to use if they don't they can be held accountable in one way or another
CEOs should know this and protect their companies and shareholders in a responsible manner

The gun is absolutely safe when used to factory specifications do you agree Joab? This is a yes and no answer dude.

 

[joab]

What about post 187 did you think I would forget)
Answer that and we can talk further
You have a habit of running away from your own points

Be man enough to act like a man and address your lies and flip flops, dude

And the design only allows for 5 lets keep the conversation on track

Sorry couldn't let this go but it does pertain to 187

The gun is absolutely safe when used to factory specifications do you agree Joab?

The 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.

Any point in a storm huh dude
If you find that one point doesn't work for you just wait until everyone forgets you made it and contradict it

And I have already addressed your factory recommendation routine

As I have said over and over
The factory telling you how to circumvent it's design flaw does not nullify the flaw, it merely confirms it

Now on to 187, dude

 

[STAGE 2]

The factory telling you how to circumvent it's design flaw does not nullify the flaw, it merely confirms it

I'm not going to go through all of what you said because its obvious that I'm not going to change your mind. What I do find interesting however is that you now have twice completely ignored the most important part of my argument and the essential part of this case.

The fact that after all I've said you wrote the above sentence tells me you 1) don't know the law 2) know it but are forgetting it or 3) are intentionally ignoring it.

A design flaw is NOT actionable. Because a product is flawed does not mean you can win a products liability suit. As I've said ad nauseum the product must be UNREASONABLY dangerous. Because this is a firearm, it is presumed to be dangerous, so the fact that is can maim or kill does not hold as much weight as a different product. Whatever else you think about this revolver, it is equally as safe as any transfer bar design when shooting.

The issue is with carry, which is not the main function of the firearm. Typically courts find a product to be unreasonably dangerous when it can cause a great deal of harm or even death, and the condition that causes the harm CANNOT BE PREVENTED. Here the potential harm ONLY presents itself when not using the gun for its intended purpose i.e shooting, and it can easily be completely removed by simply not carrying on a loaded chamber as is made blatantly clear by the manual.

Whatever else you think, this is what every design defect case comes down to, and given all the other factors here I don't think you can make the argument that its unreasonable to ask people to download a round if they are going to carry for extended periods of time. Its been common practice for over 100 years and is pretty muich common knowledge so much so that I know people who load 5 in their rugers just because thats what you do in a SA revolver.

Just out of curiosity, what legal experience do you have?

 

[joab]

Apparently it is you who has missed the point and it is glaring at you in the very first post here

The jury did find that the gun was unreasonably dangerous and awarded the guy some money

You have conveniently ignored my points also
As I said by your reasoning of inherent danger of guns then manufacturers could start reproducing Damascus shotguns and start producing full powered .45 rounds

Why don't they do this
All they have to do is put in their manuals that you only have to take certain precautions to use their products and viola they are exempt form liability, right?

They don't do this because they recognize the first duty of a CEO and that is to protect the company and it's shareholders

What does my legal experience have to do with anything
I'm not the one claiming I could have presented a better defense than the original team did

Or is this where you tell me that you're the only one here professional enough to carry on the conversation?

 

[MacGille]

Tort law is about greed, period. As long a tort lawyers are paid a large percentage of any settlement or judgement, there will be no changes. After all, lawyers write the laws,administer the laws, judge the laws and profit from the laws. Are you surprised?:barf:

 

[STAGE 2]

Apparently it is you who has missed the point and it is glaring at you in the very first post here

The jury did find that the gun was unreasonably dangerous and awarded the guy some money

Yes they did, which supports my point that the defense team did something wrong. To reach that conclusion you have to ignore over 100 years of practice where SA revolvers are concerned. You have to ignore the fact that a single act renders the revolver completely safe for carry. You have to ignore the fact that FA was utterly clear about how to carry this revolver.

Sure the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. But that doesn't mean that with different attorneys, the trial wouldn't have turned out differently.

You have conveniently ignored my points also
As I said by your reasoning of inherent danger of guns then manufacturers could start reproducing Damascus shotguns and start producing full powered .45 rounds

Why don't they do this
All they have to do is put in their manuals that you only have to take certain precautions to use their products and viola they are exempt form liability, right?

They don't do this because they recognize the first duty of a CEO and that is to protect the company and it's shareholders

Apples and oranges. Making a gun thats unsafe to shoot is wholly different than making a firearm that must be carried in a certian way. There isn't anything defective about the FA when used for its intended purpose, shooting.

As far as my "reasoning" about the danger of guns, its not my reasoning at all. The law carves out a higher burden for inherently dangerous objects, firearms included. This doesn't completely absolve a manufacturer of liability, but it does make the plaintiff work harder than they normally would have to.

What is also interesting is your logic regarding the company. I completely agree that a CEO's first duty is to the shareholders. But what makes you so sure that the CEO in this case wasn't acting on the wishes of the shareholders? FA built its reputation on building high end revolvers such as these and has a corner on its market. How do you know that the shareholders didn't want to adopt the transfer bar system? Again, another assumption on your part.

No doubt your response is that, "there is a better design out there and they should have used it anyways". That may or may not be true. Of course changing may have been against the wishes of the shareholders. Whats more important is that prior to this lawsuit there wasn't any definitive information that would have let any CEO believe that not using a transfer bar system renders a product defective. Look at al the companies that produce SAA replicas. Are you going to tell me that every single one of Uberti's products are flawed? Are you going to tell me that all of the top shooters in the SASS are just stupid? (Back to my argument that the traditional SA action has its advantages other than nostalgia).

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. So if Uberti can make a traditional SA pistol that not "flawed" or at least not flawed enough to be actionable, then why should FA be sued for making virtually the same friggin thing. Furthermore, if what you say about Ruger is true (that they didn't adopt the transfer bar system as a result of litigation but of their own volition) then thats even further evidence that there was no legal precedent of liability simply for producing non-transfer bar revolvers.

What does my legal experience have to do with anything
I'm not the one claiming I could have presented a better defense than the original team did

No, at most you're claiming that they did the best job they could have, which would require some frame of reference. At the very least, your arguing for the plainitffs which requires some expertise.

Or is this where you tell me that you're the only one here professional enough to carry on the conversation?

Well, judging by the way you butcher the law regarding this case, I'm inclined to.

 

[joab]

You have done absolutely nothing to prove your point other than to stand on the opinion that firearms makers are not held to the same standard as other manufacturers

You keep saying that the gun has to be unreasonably unsafe to get a judgment
That apparently is what the jury found

You cannot accept the fact that since there is a safer better cost effective design this make the gun unreasonably unsafe so you blame the lawyers and imply that you could do better

Your argument has been nothing but the apple to oranges comparisons you accuse me of that any gun owner that was not blinded by the fact that it was a gun maker on trial would see through
When asked direct questions you duck them, I guess you are only used to asking questions, but the jury also listens to the questions not asked and judges the validity of the defense by them also

You can insult me all you want to but I have not seen the level of litigator that you claim to be here, you have done nothing to prove your case because your case is simply
"It's a gun company they don't have to be safe" which has definitively proven not to be the case here

But what makes you so sure that the CEO in this case wasn't acting on the wishes of the shareholders?

Where did I say it was the responsibility of the CEO to act on the wishes of the shareholders when it put the company in jeopardy
I stated very clearly that it was the CEO's first responsibility to protect the company and shareholders

 

[STAGE 2]

You have done absolutely nothing to prove your point other than to stand on the opinion that firearms makers are not held to the same standard as other manufacturers

And this is why I asked about your legal expertise. The LAW places firearms in a different category. Not my opinion. I could go on repeating myself but it would be of no use. Whether its out of ignorance or simply stubborness the fact that you refuse to acknowledge this tells me your motivation for arguing.

You keep saying that the gun has to be unreasonably unsafe to get a judgment
That apparently is what the jury found

You cannot accept the fact that since there is a safer better cost effective design this make the gun unreasonably unsafe so you blame the lawyers and imply that you could do better.

Yet another example of why I asked about your legal expertise. Because a safer alternative design exists does not in of itself make a product unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff has to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous and then they have to show that there was an alternative that the manufacturer could have used.

What this means is that all the defendant has to do is invalidate one of these elements and they win the case. The plaintiff has to prove both by a preponderance. The advantage is clearly in the defendant's favor.

The fact that you think that all the plaintiffs had to do is point to a ruger SAA to win their case is totally incorrect and laughable.

Your argument has been nothing but the apple to oranges comparisons you accuse me of that any gun owner that was not blinded by the fact that it was a gun maker on trial would see through
When asked direct questions you duck them, I guess you are only used to asking questions, but the jury also listens to the questions not asked and judges the validity of the defense by them also

I haven't ducked a single question. You, however have ignored entire parts of what I write. If everything you say is true than how does Uberti stay in business? What about Cimarron Arms or all the other companies that make traditional six guns. Are they all flawed? By your logic they are.

You can insult me all you want to but I have not seen the level of litigator that you claim to be here, you have done nothing to prove your case because your case is simply
"It's a gun company they don't have to be safe" which has definitively proven not to be the case here

I'm not insulting you, but the fact that you feel my argument is "its a gun company they dont have to be safe", speaks more to your reading ability than any lack of legal education. What remains true is that you don't know the law, and you're in no position to explain why a jury did A or why a lawyer did B.

Where did I say it was the responsibility of the CEO to act on the wishes of the shareholders when it put the company in jeopardy
I stated very clearly that it was the CEO's first responsibility to protect the company and shareholders

First things first, I don't know whether FA has shareholders. If they don't then your argument is squat.

If they do, then it doesn't automatically follow that changing all their revolvers to a transfer bar design is "protecting" the company. Why? Because prior to this suit there was NOTHING to suggest that FA would be liable because of their design. There are tons of companies that have and still do produce a traditional SA revolver and NONE have been forced to change their design because of litigation. The traditional action has NEVER been ruled to be a design defect, let alone an unreasonably dangerous one.

There is nothing that the CEO could look at that would suggest the company would need protection.

 

[joab]

First things first, I don't know whether FA has shareholders. If they don't then your argument is squat.

It was your question

Now you say I don't understand the law and that I am laughably ignorant because you have failed to adequately prove your point
You have repeatedly said that guns are not held to the same standard as other products and that it has to be proven that there is a defect that could have easily been overcome
Did I get that right oh Great Litigator?

Then you state that my position on the Ruger BlackHawk(they didn't make a SAA back then, long as we're keeping things straight) is ignorant

So please tell me how exactly it is that the original designer of the FA firing system finding the gun to be dangerously defective and corrected that defect proving that it could be done simply and cost effectively without detracting from the design of the gun, which the FA is based on, before the FA was marketed does not have a bearing on the liability that FA holds for not implementing the same system which was available to them before the began production?

Here's a hint, the jury awarded the guy the money
You can sit here and suppose all you want to that you could have done better, but I see no evidence of that either.

 

[STAGE 2]

Now you say I don't understand the law and that I am laughably ignorant because you have failed to adequately prove your point
You have repeatedly said that guns are not held to the same standard as other products and that it has to be proven that there is a defect that could have easily been overcome
Did I get that right oh Great Litigator?

No you didn't and I can't for the life of me understand why since I've written it at least 4 times. You could have copied and pasted it since its sitting right there on your screen, but you still managed to get it wrong. A plaintiff must show that a product is UNREASONABLY dangerous or defective. Something is unreasonably dangerous when it causes a high degree of harm and the condition cannot be removed. Guns use this same analysis, but are held to a higher standard than normal products. That means what would get you a judgment for a normal product won't necessarily get you a judgment for a gun.

Thats the standard. Its overwhelmingly in the defendants favor. A case like this places even more marbles in the defendants court because we aren't talking about something such as a defective safety or a malfunction that affects the shooter while shooting. We are talking about a condition that only presents itself when not using the gun for its intended purpose.

Thats the deal. If you read this to mean that "guns are dangerous so companies aren't liable" or "they put a warning label so everything's fine" then I don't have anything else to say. I've spelled this out so a 3rd grader can understand it.

So please tell me how exactly it is that the original designer of the FA firing system finding the gun to be dangerously defective and corrected that defect proving that it could be done simply and cost effectively without detracting from the design of the gun, which the FA is based on, before the FA was marketed does not have a bearing on the liability that FA holds for not implementing the same system which was available to them before the began production?

Several reasons. First and foremost, you are making an asusmption as to why the design was changed. Secondly, you are incorrectly constraining the analysis to the previous design. When determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous, evidence is going to be presented looking at a variety of similar products, in this case single action revolvers. That means uberti, cimmaron, navy arms, ruger, etc. There are thousands of traditional revolvers on the market, and they are used for sport shooting, competition, plinking, hunting, and possibly in the rare case self defense. It is in this context (if the lawyers properly did their job) which the revolver is judged to be unreasonably dangerous or not.

Finally, everything I said about liability still holds. There has never been a case (to my knowledge) judging the single action design unreasonably dangerous or defective. More importantly there has never been a case holding that the single action design was even defective. Countless other companies SOLELY sell these firearms with the proper warnings without fear of litigation.

Because one company such as ruger decides to change their design does not mean that every other company making similar products does as well. This is apparently the argument you've been making. The law simply doesn't require this. You may think it does, but it doesn't. Now plenty of plaintiffs attorneys make this argument, and sometimes it does work as I assume it did here. However if you manage to get the jury to focus on the law then you're going to prevent them from making a "fairness" decision as you advocate.

You can sit here and suppose all you want to that you could have done better, but I see no evidence of that either.

Thats because you get the legal advice you pay for. My clarence darrow is going to cost you a whole bunch more.

 

[joab]

First and foremost, you are making an asusmption as to why the design was changed.

Actually no the reason is pretty much common knowledge
Which is why the FA is UNREASONABLY flawed (happy now)
And you can stick that word in my original comment if you like
The fact still remains that FA knew the design was flawed and there was a simple fix
That makes it UNREASONABLE to think that the gun would not be the cause of litigation down the road, unless some lawyer told them they would be exempt from liability because they were making a gun and didn't have to meet the same standards of safety as other products

The law simply doesn't require this. You may think it does, but it doesn't

Where did I say it was a law?
It should be common sense not to base your design on a design that has proven to be UNREASONABLY unsafe that would be the Ruger design not the SAA design, there is a difference but I never implied that there was a law

However if you manage to get the jury to focus on the law then you're going to prevent them from making a "fairness" decision as you advocate.

Would that fairness be not allowing a company to make an UNREASONABLY dangerous product with a history of being UNREASONABLY dangerous because they think they are exempt from safety standards

Thats because you get the legal advice you pay for. My clarence darrow is going to cost you a whole bunch more.

If you say so esquire
Ranks right up there with the sun was in my eyes

 

[2rugers]

Another good example:

Loading ammunition like Buffalo Bore in a revolver that they clearly state is not up to the task.

Who is at fault???

Buffalo Bore? For making ammo that feeds into a Revolver that cannot handle the pressure.

or...

The shooter? For not following the directions provided with the ammo and shooting it in a revolver that could not handle the pressure.

Same thing.

So many everyday items become lethal if the warnings and directions of the manufacturer are not followed.

 

[STAGE 2]

Joab, I can see that arguing with is going to get nowhere. You demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law and how litigation works in each and every post you've written. A person wouldn't dream about telling the surgeon how to do his job or the engineer how to design the building, but somehow when it comes to law, everyone is an expert. Just to make sure I'm not off my rocker, I had a couple other associates read this over. I can't repeat what they said for fear of losing my membership here.

What I do know is that this whole thing proves the old saying about those who drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. But what do I know I just do this for a living.

 

[joab]

Yeah but you are the only one who could have saved FA from this judgment

In the end FA made a known defective product and got called on it
The CEO kew or should have known that his product was ripe for litigation by the simple fact that as early as the 1990's VPC called the Old Model Ruger the most dangerously defective gun ever made
Only a complete an utter idiot would ignore that threat
Question my intelligence all you want but facts are facts

Just like the fact that I have claimed or implied no legal expertise.
If you can't prove your case with facts why not use lies and diversion,. but then you do do that for a living.

 

[threegun]

It should be common sense not to base your design on a design that has proven to be UNREASONABLY unsafe that would be the Ruger design not the SAA design, there is a difference but I never implied that there was a law

This is you problem Joab. People seek this design buddy. They look for it. They want it over the transfer bar types that also exist. Stage explained why several times.

The 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.

I said this to prove that an action had to be performed by the shooter to make the gun fire. It is 100 percent true.

Quote:
The gun is absolutely safe when used to factory specifications do you agree Joab?

You agree

1. The shooter purchased a gun with carry limitations when other safer models exist.

2. The shooter must perform an action to cause the gun to fire due to its "design flaw".

3. The shooter must ignore carry recommendations for this action to be capable of causing an AD due to the "design flaw".

Without the negligent actions of the shooter the AD cannot happen no matter what the flaw in design. All else is moot.

Don't you find it lonely holding your position? I mean for over a century a bunch of folks have lived safely with this "design flaw". When they messed up it was their fault and they understood this. They would never even think of suing. The gun hasn't changed but the people have. You have the mindset of a person who refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. I have listed above the shooters actions that must occur for an AD to happen. You cannot argue that the shooter performed at least two negligent actions to even notice the "design flaw". Therefore it is not the factory or the design.

At some point in your life hopefully you will man up and accept responsibility for you actions. Man up and stop blaming others. It is folks who think like you who are ruining this country with bogus litigation.

 

[joab]

Threegun before jumping in on someone else's discussion you have the 187 issue to resolve
You will also notice that while 2Stage has said this repeatedly he has offered no proof of this he has not even attempted to dispute the possibility that those customers buy the gun in spite of the fact that it a dangerous design not because they prefer it

At some point in your life hopefully you will man up and accept responsibility for you actions. Man up and stop blaming others. It is folks who think like you who are ruining this country with bogus litigation.

Here we go again repeat a lie often and hope it becomes truth
I called you on this lie back in 187 and before why don't you "man-up" and address your lies or retract them

Your entire post is a simplistic rehash of things that have already been addressed and adequately dismissed I guess you hope that others have your short memory
187 awaits your attention

 

[2rugers]

Car manufacturers should be held liable when you back over a child in the driveway because the car does not have a backup camera?

Swimming pool manufacturers should be held liable for making a deep end because not all of us can swim?

Scope manufacturers should be held liable for my "MAGNUM EYE"?

The 5 gallon bucket manufacturer should be held responsible when we fill it with water while washing the car and leave our 2 year old alone to play with it?

My trucks speedo goes to 100 mph, if I crash while driving this speed can I sue the auto maker for making a vehicle which can exceed any posted limit in this country?

The arms at train crossings allow me to go around them when I am in a hurry, if a train hits me can I sue?

If I go blind staring at this computer screen for 8 hrs a day can I sue the monitor manufacturer for making it to bright?

I was frying fish on the gas stove the other day when I remembered I left a 5 gal. bucket of water outside for my 2 year old to play with.
When I went outside, I started playing in the bucket of water and forgot all about the fish.
When the smoke alarm went off I ran inside and grabbed the fire extinguisher, pulled the pin and blasted myself in the face with fire retardant.
When I finally put out the fire I found I could not reach the smoke detector to turn it off because my roll around office chair was to short and the wheels will not lock.
I fell out of the chair and hit my head on the frying pan handle that was sticking out from the stove and knocked myself cold.
When I finally regained consciousness I had 3rd degree burns from the fish grease, I couldn't hear a thing because the smoke alarm above my head had deafened me, I was light headed and felt nauseous from the gas still coming out of the unlit stove burner and I was blinded by the fire retardant I had sprayed in my eyes.
I staggered outside expecting the worst only to find my two yr. old had,

finished washing the car,
emptied the 5 gal. bucket,
called the fire dept. and paramedics,
turned off the gas and gotten a step ladder from the closet and turned off the smoke detector while wearing hearing protection.

He had also cleaned the kitchen floor and had 10 large pepperoni pizzas
(HIS FAVORITE) delivered before the firemen got there.

My insurance is good but I want someone to pay dammit,

WHO TO SUE???

The bucket manufacturer? It was full of water and attended by a two year old.

The fire extinguisher manufacturer for making an extinguisher that is definately not point and shoot?

The chair maker who made an office chair capable of being stood on but not stable enough to do so?

The frying pan maker for making a pan with too long a handle?

The stove manufacturer? For making a stove that does not shut off the gas when there is no flame.

The smoke alarm maker? I am still hearing that CHEEP, CHEEP, CHEEP (and nothing else), three days later.

Maybe I should sue my two year old for being outside with a 5 gallon bucket of water all by himself, which is the whole reason I went outside to begin with.

Or maybe, just maybe, I should suck up my IRRESPONSIBILITY because there

is the very faint chance I might get a judge and jury who would say this

whole situation was somehow.....MY FAULT!!

NAAHHH. The chances of that happening are NADA in todays world.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

 

[threegun]

Joab, I answered you on post 189. Someone calls you stupid deal with them. You attack us all even those who never started name calling.

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

As I said...."For starters it is you that started calling people stupid. I simply called it ridiculous."

You were crying like a little child that someone had the nerve to call you stupid yet you hypocritically called everyone stupid yourself. Thats what I was pointing out.

Now we can get on to the debate.

 

[threegun]

Your entire post is a simplistic rehash of things that have already been addressed and adequately dismissed

In your mind you have adequately addressed the issue. Your mind that assigns blame to a company DESPITE the actions of the individual. Actions warned against by the company and ignored by the individual. Actions that if didn't occur the gun wouldn't have fired. Your mind doesn't think logically as you have completely ignored the negligent acts by the consumer that caused the AD. Folks that think like you are known as players of the blame game. You obviously had company on that jury.

Nobody is going to argue that the SAA has issues with its design that force carry precautions. This is well known and remedied by carrying on an empty chamber. Still people seek them out and actually prefer them. The factory (from whatever company) warns of this issue for those rare few who didn't already know. Given all the above if I shoot my leg off it was my own fault nobody elses. If you shoot your leg off the design flaw was between you ears.

Can the SAA or FA be carried with all chambers loaded without an accident? Can it be carried with all chambers loaded and go off without an action to the hammer? If the answer is yes and no then your argument is lost.

2Rugers summed it up pretty good.