Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[joab]

Some of you guys would probably sue after signing a waiver before a dangerous but fun activity. By signing the waiver you are accepting the danger as is.

Did he sign a waiver?

He chose KNOWINGLY to buy and carry the less safe revolver.

Do you know what he was told by the salesman ?

He bought the gun, knew its limitations, and choose to improperly carry it

How was he carrying improperly?

You have made a lot of assumptions with nothing to back them up

The gun was inherently flawed and when used with in the manufactured specs it could go off unintentionally
Do you disagree?

 

[threegun]

Did he sign a waiver?

He may not have signed a waiver but he was supplied with an owners manual which noted the limitations of the gun as well as the proper carrying methods.

You have made a lot of assumptions with nothing to back them up

How was he carrying improperly?

If he had the gun strapped in the holster the hammer cannot move rearward to accidentally fire. If he was carrying it on an unloaded chamber as recommended by the factory it wouldn't have discharged. If the hammer move rearward enough to turn the cylinder to a live round the load position would have stopped it from going forward unless the trigger was pulled.

If he didn't know it wasn't the fault of the factory unless they didn't supply him with an owners manual or if the manual didn't stress it. He knew enough to sue for the supposed defect though.

 

[joab]

He may not have signed a waiver but he was supplied with an owners manual which noted the limitations of the gun as well as the proper carrying methods.

You know this? Does FA have a warranty card or any other evidence that he read or even received the gun with an instruction manual.
The story provided does not even mention if he bought the gun new or used

I asked you again

The gun was inherently flawed and when used with in the manufactured specs it could go off unintentionally
Do you disagree?

 

[DonR101395]

It's easier to sue the company than to admit you don't know how to use the equipment you bought.

 

[Scott Conklin]

"HI! I'm an idiot who couldn't/wouldn't/didn't properly handle the tool in question and/or failed to make myself knowledgeable about said tool and/or believed what some sales guy said and/or didn't educate myself beyond what the sales guy said and I hurt myself. Since it couldn't possibly be my own utter negligent stupidity I'll sue the company and reap everyone's sympathy since I'm the guy with the shortened leg, too!"

 

[joab]

I wonder why it is that all the comedians are refusing to answer a direct question

 

[DonR101395]

To answer your question,
No, the gun isn't flawed. If loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer it will not just go off(per the manufacturer's instructions). Sorry, but they aren't required to make you read them, only provide them. If you buy a gun without a manual and don't know how it works, they will send you a manual for the asking. If the hammer was pulled back and the trigger pulled it will go off the same as any other revolver. Does that make all revolvers inherently flawed designs? Transfer bar or not, if you cock it and pull the trigger it goes bang.

 

[joab]

If the hammer was pulled back and the trigger pulled it will go off the same as any other revolver. Does that make all revolvers inherently flawed designs? Transfer bar or not, if you cock it and pull the trigger it goes bang.

Obviously your knowledge of the design is flawed
I'll give you a minute to research and get back to us.

No, the gun isn't flawed. If loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer it will not just go off(per the manufacturer's instructions).

If it is not a flawed design why does it take extraordinary precautions to make the gun safe to carry
And why has the design been abandoned in every modern design?
Why did Ruger recall all of their products with that design and retro fit the transfer bars for free and still will?
The only revolvers made with that design are pure SAA clones and they are getting harder to find
Why would that be true if the design was not inherently unsafe?

2nd Amendment
I'll go out on a limb here and assume that that was not directed at me, since I have not even implied any sympathy for the guy
Not real sure why people insist on turning this legal decision personal

A corporate entity has the duty to protect itself and its share holders from harm, in manufacturing a firearm with a known and easily fixable design flaw FA failed to do this

 

[joab]

who would buy the one without the safety and why?

The purist, because he's a purist

 

[Scott Conklin]

No, it was not "directed" at you. it was directed at the mindset of much of the population of this nation, who feel that if they do something stupid they should be compensated for it. There's a case of a girl who died recently from poisoning by a muscle cream. She plastered so much on so often the chemical eventually killed her. Her mother is considering a lawsuit because the chemical is poisonous. Of course she's correct...it IS...when used incompetently.

The firearm design is dangerous...as are ALL firearms...when used incompetently. The logic regarding the transfer bar could be applied, by one of a mind to do so, against any single-action pistol. Something with too short a barrel...whatever. pick something that you think is designed poorly/that a better design exists for.

The fact is this is just another stupid lawsuit that compensates someone who did something ignorant and happened to do it with an item someone else thinks is "unsafe". There's always ignorant people using "unsafe" things...and someone else ready to blame whomever has the deepest pockets...

 

[DonR101395]

Obviously your knowledge of the design is flawed
I'll give you a minute to research and get back to us.

No my knowledge of the design is fine. Go ahead and check out a few revolvers for yourself.

If it is not a flawed design why does it take extraordinary precautions to make the gun safe to carry
And why has the design bee abandoned in every modern design, why did Ruger recall all of their products with that design and retro fit the transfer bars for free and still will
The only revolvers made with that design are pure SAA clones and they are getting harder to find
Why would that be true if the design was not inherently unsafe

Let's see, could it be because of lawsuits from people unfamiliar with how to use their equipment? ding, ding, ding..... The govt. got involved in regulating gun designs for people too stupid to recognize they need training.
You're knowledge is lacking, read up a little. They aren't hard to find. Off the top of my head, Uberti, USFA come to mind. I can walk into nearly any gun store and find several Uberti revolvers in the case and if not in the case, have one delivered in a couple of days for under $500. There were 77 on gunbroker 5 minutes ago. You better go get your research done.

 

[joab]

No my knowledge of the design is fine. Go ahead and check out a few revolvers for yourself.

We are nopt talking about the design of revolvers in general we are talking about a design specific to FAs, can you tell us the difference?

Let's see, could it be because of lawsuits from people unfamiliar with how to use their equipment? ding, ding, ding.....

Ding ding ding back atcha chief, that is exactly what we are talking about. If FA had heeded the threat of lawsuit then they would not have purposely eliminated the transfer bar from their design

The govt. got involved in regulating gun designs for people too stupid to recognize they need training.

If the government is regulating the design then why did FA not incorporate it ?

You're knowledge is lacking, read up a little. They aren't hard to find. Off the top of my head, Uberti, USFA come to mind. I can walk into nearly any gun store and find several Uberti revolvers in the case and if not in the case, have one delivered in a couple of days for under $500. There were 77 on gunbroker 5 minutes ago. You better go get your research done.

I figured the reading comprehension requirements for the last statement would prove difficult here
I'll see if I can help

And why has the design been abandoned in every modern
design?

The only revolvers made with that design are pure SAA clones and they are getting harder to find

More and more CAS gun makers are opting for the transfer bar
Just because you can find more than one made by a particular manufacturer does not mean that the design is not getting harder to find
What if you don't like those particular companies what others can you turn to?

 

[Scott Conklin]

Are they getting harder to find because it's a poor design? Or because lazy, stupid people can't be bothered to educate themselves when suing is so much more...enriching?

 

[Wildalaska]

.

The fact is this is just another stupid lawsuit that compensates someone who did something ignorant and happened to do it with an item someone else thinks is "unsafe". There's always ignorant people using "unsafe" things...and someone else ready to blame whomever has the deepest pockets...

Nice rhetoric..unfortunately you know NOTHING about the facts before the Court (nor do I ) so to call the lawsuit "stupid" is sort of dumb itself, neh?

Can the class think of situations where freedom Arms could be at fault even in the eyes of the gun lover crowd..or her did we already do that..

WildletitbleedwinsAlaska

 

[joab]

What difference does it make
The design is flawed and is being replaced Uberti, the company that Don presented as a company that makes guns without transfer bars now has incorporated a hammer block safety into their design

So now what Don your field just got narrowed drastically
Where are you going to go
Beretta, Ruger, Taurus all have transfer bars and Uberti mades have a hammer block

That leaves you with what USFA, still think they are not getting harder to find

 

[DonR101395]

You're always good for a pointless argument Joab.

We're discussing the design and the design differences between transfer bar systems and non-transfer bar systems. You can spin it anyway you like but you're wrong. Get it, you are wrong.

The FA doesn't use a transfer bar as well as the other manufacturers I mentioned. Ruger, Beretta, Taurus use a transfer bar system. Both designs are safe when used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Ruger never forced anyone to modify their revolvers. I still have two OM unmodified Blackhawks. They don't seem to be going off on their own.

 

[joab]

No, it was not "directed" at you

Just checkin

The logic regarding the transfer bar could be applied, by one of a mind to do so, against any single-action pistol.

Yes it can and has that is why most manufactures are abandoning the design

Something with too short a barrel...whatever. pick something that you think is designed poorly/that a better design exists for.

Only if it takes extraordinary measures to make the design safe as with the FA

 

[joab]

We're discussing the design and the design differences between transfer bar systems and non-transfer bar systems. You can spin it anyway you like but you're wrong. Get it, you are wrong.

Well I am discussing the difference between the systems I'm not sure what your rant is
You still haven't convinced me that you have any idea what the difference is, even though I asked you directly you still keep trying to compare it to a DA revolver
The only description you have given so far is wrong get it wrong

My point has remained constant yours is moving all over the place

The doesn't use a transfer bar as well as the other manufacturers I mentioned. Ruger, Beretta, Taurus use a transfer bar system. Both designs are safe when used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Ruger never forced anyone to modify their revolvers. I still have two OM unmodified Blackhawks. They don't seem to be going off on their own.

In your haste you may have left a word out there.
If that word was Uberti, I'll point out again that Uberti is abandoning the design in favor of a hammer block safety, how long before USFA follows suit
And nowhere did I even imply that Ruger forced anybody to do anything, don't try the twisty routine just because you can't support your point(s)
They offered and offered loudly, that protected them from lawsuits, which was the purpose of the exercise

 

[Justme]

Just a point to get back to the original title of the thread. The guy won his lawsuit, therefore, by definition, it was not "dumb".

 

[DonR101395]

Well I am discussing the difference between the systems I'm not sure what your rant is
You still haven't convinced me that you have any idea what the difference is, even though I asked you directly you still keep trying to compare it to a DA revolver
The only description you have given so far is wrong get it wrong

My point has remained constant yours is moving all over the place

I'm not ranting about anything. I pointed out that you're wrong is all.

In your haste you may have left a word out there.
If that word was Uberti, I'll point out again that Uberti is abandoning the design in favor of a hammer block safety, how long before USFA follows suit
And nowhere did I even imply that Ruger forced anybody to do anything, don't try the twisty routine just because you can't support your point(s)
They offered and offered loudly, that protected them from lawsuits, which was the purpose of the exercise

I said

The doesn't use a transfer bar as well as the other manufacturers I mentioned

and then went back and corrected it by adding FA

The FA doesn't use a transfer bar as well as the other manufacturers I mentioned.

I believe I mentioned Uberti.

BTW Uberti non-hammer block is not hard to find. It's actually the easiest.