If you and the other paralegals think that's so funny
Bitter are we? I'll let my arguments speak for themselves. You can let yours do the same. We'll let the folks on TFL decide, although right now I'd say you're an army of one.
If you and the other paralegals think that's so funny
And to do so you must violtae at least one of the basic rules of firearm safety
We can never convince him no matter how legal or logical the argument. I should have stopped the first time.
Actually tort law works on the average, reasonable man standard...
INHALATION, SKIN CONTACT, OR INGESTION MAY CAUSE SEVERE HEADACHE, NAUSEA, AND LOWERING OF BLOOD PRESSURE.
The plain cold fact is that in the normal course of carrying the gun in the situations that the gun is advertised as being appropriate for ( that would be hunting and backwoods hiking) it is entirely possible and some may even say probable that outside forces can act on the hammer (that would be twigs and vines, or maybe even heavy leather coats) and cause the hammer to retract enough to fire the gun
If this scenario was not possible and some might say probable then why does the factory outline the method for circumventing their design flaw in order to prevent this very thing from happening
Actually if this very scenario was not possible and some would say probable the FA would not have found themselves in court trying to explain away this very occurrence
If this very scenario were not possible and some would say probable then you and your friends just wasted a whole lot of time trying to explain that this was a a precaution that was negligent not to take
is to point out that an additional action must be performed to cause the AD. You seem to agree. Still FA has provided a way to carry perfectly safely. My point is to show the negligence of the consumer in this case. The consumer violated the rules provided by the factory. The consumer chose the SAA design therefore he must take its limitations and accept its consequences for breaking the rules provided. Without the negligent actions by the consumer we argue that this court case wouldn't exist.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. The gun will never fire unless this action happens.
But, if I were laid up in the hospital, missing a leg, wondering how my family was going to survive, how I was going to pay for college, medical bills etc., I might have a different opinion. Never say never.
Some people use excuses like these and others to justify wrong/bad behavior from stealing to murder, this is no exception.
I'm just saying, we don't know what we're capable of until pushed far enough. Anyone who says they know exactly how they'll react in all given situations is kidding themselves. You'll do what you have to do.
According to Joab 600 folks have been killed or injured by the 1873 design. Yet only a very few have sued. I guess the majority are not so capable....thank god.
Most folks are fair minded I believe. I'd like to think I'm among them.
You certainly sound fair minded from the few posts I've read.
Of those how many could have happened with a transfer barred revolver? How many of those could have happened if the factory recommended carry method was used on a traditional 1873 revolver?
Great now you're gonna argue lawWhat has to be violated to get an AD from the Freedom Arms Joab? A legal warning maybe
What's mind blowing is that you still consider this a legal warningWhy you put so much weight into violating one of the basic rules of firearms safety yet completely disregard the one major well known no no's for the SAA which is clearly written in the owners manual as a legal warning is mind blowing.
No one has bothered to offer a legal logical explanationWe can never convince him no matter how legal or logical the argument. I should have stopped the first time.
Another simplistic commentBackwoods hiking with a boat anchor like the FA???????? You don't hike much do you?
And there' that whole RIF thing again or are you doing your typical twisty routineAccording to Joab 600 folks have been killed or injured by the 1873 design. Yet only a very few have sued
Now that's a deliberate twistAfter 134 years and more than a million revolvers from several different companies we only have 600 AD's due to 1873 design.
The Ruger an FA are not traditional SAA designs and the factory suggestions on how to circumvent a flaw do not nullify the flawHow many of those could have happened if the factory recommended carry method was used on a traditional 1873 revolver?
And I have not disagreed with that point, in fact I have specifically agreed with itMy point is to show the negligence of the consumer in this case. The consumer violated the rules provided by the factory. The consumer chose the SAA design therefore he must take its limitations and accept its consequences for breaking the rules provided. Without the negligent actions by the consumer we argue that this court case wouldn't exist.
And again for all of you calender deficient members
We do not live in the past and this litigious society is not as threegun alleges, a recent phenom, it has been around for most of my life it has certainly been around for all of FA's life
I challenge you to find where I have disputed thisI challenge you to find these types of idiotic warnings on products prior to the 1960's. Society has become much more litigious in recent history (as I said from the late 60's to present).
Actually for that to be a point you would have to show where I have said that FA was responsible for forcing the user to do anythingBeyond this point lies your inability to comprehend that FA didn't force a violation of owners manual.
When looked at by one with limited logical thinking I can see how that could be assumedHow can you agree that the consumer violated the rules then blame the company for producing a product that when operated to owners manual spec cannot cause an AD? This is not logical.
If a man goes to Eatonville to recruit for the Klan and gets his head kicked in will anyone here feel sorry for him
If he sues for damages afterwards would we take into consideration that he knew or should have known that his actions although legal were extraordinarily stupid and that there was a flaw in his thinking process and that there was a viable option to recruiting in that area
Both parties should share blame because both parties should have known better
........I will argue that 30 or so years of 231 years is quit recent. Again it is my belief that this change in attitude is responsible for the explosion in litigation and the trend of jury's finding guilt on part of the manufacturer despite the actions of the victim that caused the accident. It is also my belief that you have been affected by this change.And again for all of you calender deficient members
We do not live in the past and this litigious society is not as threegun alleges, a recent phenom, it has been around for most of my life it has certainly been around for all of FA's life
When looked at by one with limited logical thinking I can see how that could be assumed