Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[joab]

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

You are not addressing the issues that you are trying to bring up either
When you ignore questions to the points you raise you are surrendering those points as erroneous
I have asked you several questions, you have failed to answer any of them
I have not shied from any question or point that you raise,
Why is that?

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

Try to follow along Don
They are starting to abandon the traditional design,( I said that remember) that means that it is getting harder to find one NEW
I don't care how many used ones you can dig up as it has no bearing on the discussion
I can dig up quite a few Iver Johnson topbreaks does that mean that they are still a viable company

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

Odd emboldening when I asked about the one word you left out
Actually an odd statement altogether since it was already been established that FA uses the old design, when they lost the lawsuit for using the old design

How long do you think it will be easy to find a new FA in that configuration in the future?

 

[joab]

Let me reiterate the questions Don
If you answer then you are serious, if not you are merely arguing to argue

If the hammer was pulled back and the trigger pulled it will go off the same as any other revolver

Transfer bar or not, if you cock it and pull the trigger it goes bang.

Do you understand yet why these statement are wrong as they pertain to this discussion

If it is not a flawed design why does it take extraordinary precautions to make the gun safe to carry

You conveniently skipped over this one and it is the most important one to answer to defeat my point

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

That seems to be basically one of if not the reason you apply for the abandoning of the old trigger mechanism by other companies.

 

[DonR101395]

Try to follow along Don
They are starting to abandon the traditional design,( I said that remember) that means that it is getting harder to find one NEW
I don't care how many used ones you can dig up as it has no bearing on the discussion
I can dig up quite a few Iver Johnson topbreaks does that mean that they are still a viable company

Can you back that statement up about Uberti abandoning their design? On their website the only difference between a new and old model is a locking cylinder pin. It says nothing about a transfer bar.


As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't command an answer. Actually I've spent more time answering your questions than I had planned. You asked for an answer and in your typical fashion, you wanted an internet argument. I played along for a little while, but now I have other things to do.

Have a nice day..........................if it's possible in your world.

 

[joab]

As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't command an answer. Actually I've spent more time answering your questions than I had planned. You asked for an answer and in your typical fashion, you wanted an internet argument. I played along for a little while, but now I have other things to do.

And once again you refuse to answer simple questions and back up your statement and chose the veiled simplistic insult route

I'll take your non response as proof that you cannot back up your position


Oh and go reread my comments
I never implied that Uberti had gone to a transfer bar design
More proof that you let emotion cloud your ability to logically debate

Have the day you deserve

 

[Big Don]

Posted earlier on:

There is no cure for stupidity.

I submit one sure cure: death.
This guy got off lucky in only losing a portion of his leg. He could have shot someone else.

 

[threegun]

If carried in accordance with factory recommendations it is safe. End of story.

If not for the liberal blame everybody else for your foolish actions mindset this accident would be just that an accident.

Joab, You might consider the FA design as flawed compared to the transfer bar system. I consider the transfer bar a better design. The transfer bar being better doesn't mean the FA design is flawed.

 

[joab]

I'll ask again
If the design is not flawed why does it take extraordinary precautions to make it safe?

 

[Scott Conklin]

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?

No, but we all know your biased agenda and your willingness to literally say anything for some attention so, hey, enjoy.

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..

Not in this case, but maybe since you are not part of that crowd you can give us some enlightenment from the viewpoint of the entitlement crowd?

WildletitbleedwinsAlaska

You ran out of interesting corruptions of your moniker five years ago, You can stop now.

 

[Scott Conklin]

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

Hmm, I was specifically thinking of the 1911 and I see no effort to abandon that design whatsoever. OTOH, I don't see any effort to abandon the single action in general so, alrighty then.

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

The century+ old practice of leaving one hole empty is "extraordinary? Wow.

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".

Lots of lawsuits have been won over the years. Do you want to say that none of them were dumb, either, since they were won? I'm certain i can get a LOT of laughs by posting links to refute THAT claim.

 

[joab]

I was specifically thinking of the 1911 and I see no effort to abandon that design whatsoever. OTOH, I don't see any effort to abandon the single action in general so, alrighty then.

And the 1911 is similar in function to the FA how exactly
And show me where I sad that single action was being abandoned
Talk about your twisty diversions
If you can't follow the conversation why involve yourself in it

The century+ old practice of leaving one hole empty is "extraordinary? Wow.

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 (Load one skip one and load the other three. or four)

Now if the design is not inherently flawed why is this precaution necessary
It's a simple question why not answer it instead of playing silly little word games

 

[DonR101395]

2nd Amendment,
Why do you bother? You can answer every question and he will never answer a single question posed of him. I think you've figured out by now that his Lordship is always right and everyone else is either 1. Too stupid, 2. Clueless and too stupid or 3. twisting his Lordships words and therefore stupid, clueless and not worthy of an adult conversation.
Before you start the personal attack line, I believe you opened with

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

and progressed to

Obviously your knowledge of the design is flawed

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

BTW: I don't have to convince you of anything. You seem to have this feeling that people need to convince of their argument. You're just not that significant.

 

[Scott Conklin]

And the 1911 is similar in function to the FA how exactly

Which, of course, was my point: Some people believe a single action is by definition a dangerous design. In other words, someone can find (and have) an excuse to condemn anything.

And show me where I sad that single action was being abandoned

Post #97, where you reply to Don who specifically said "any single action pistol". You may have meant only the transfer bar issue but that is not what you said and considering your fixation on whether Don has left out words, understood this or that, etc, one should be able to expect accuracy from you. Correct?

Talk about your twisty diversions
If you can't follow the conversation why involve yourself in it

*LOL* That's funny. Really. Now, try and keep up, ok?

The century+ old practice of leaving one hole empty is "extraordinary? Wow.

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 (Load one skip one and load the other three. or four)

I guess you had a point here? Maybe you could make it into a complete sentence and then explain it since all you've done so far is add some detail to what i already said. That certainly is NOT an "extraordinary" practice.

Now if the design is not inherently flawed why is this precaution necessary
It's a simple question why not answer it instead of playing silly little word games

Actually that would be your forte. Meanwhile, your question has been answered: It's the same thing as not carrying a 1911 with one in the hole and unlocked, though some people do it. Other people would compare this to not having a mag safety in every pistol. What you are fixated on as a flaw i think of as nothing but another aspect of carrying yet another style of firearm. Maybe I'm just not troubled by learning the right way to do things?

 

[threegun]

I'll ask again
If the design is not flawed why does it take extraordinary precautions to make it safe?

The gun works as designed. If the user performs a negligent act it is possible for the gun to fire. Many guns have similar limitations but function as intended without being misused. Face it the saa cannot be made to fire without a negligent act on the consumer. To me that is not a design flaw. If the hammer fell by itself due to design problem..........design flaw.

 

[threegun]

And the 1911 is similar in function to the FA how exactly

I think 2nd amendment was referring to this......

In the 1980's Colt introduced a new series of all their models, with an additional safety device, namely a firing pin safety, which didn't allow the pistol to fire if the trigger wasn't pulled to the end of its travel. The guns produced there after, are called Colt MKIV - Series 80. This safety system (click here to view an enlarged diagram, or here to see a picture of the safety mechanism), although it was deemed necessary in today's world of lawsuits,

...... as the similarity. You know like the SAA vs transfer bar design. Series 70 1911 vs series 80. Changed due to lawsuits but not necessary in many opinions including mine. As someone stated before many times, stupid should hurt.

 

[joab]

The gun works as designed. If the user performs a negligent act it is possible for the gun to fire. Many guns have similar limitations but function as intended without being misused. Face it the saa cannot be made to fire without a negligent act on the consumer. To me that is not a design flaw. If the hammer fell by itself due to design problem..........design flaw.

The design flaw in the SAA design is an accepted historical fact. You cannot deny it just because it does not fit your argument
That was why the practice of carrying on an empty was started, to overcome the flaw not to repair it.
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
Arguing otherwise is absurd

The 1911 is safe to carry with a full load as it is designed with no extraordinary precautions, the FA and SAA are not
To argue otherwise is absurd

 

[joab]

DonR101395
Instead of the simplistic hurt feeling attacks why don't you try answering the questions
Or better yet show me what I have not answered

I have backed up my points you have run away

Stop the cry baby routine and get back in the discussion or go away

 

[Wildalaska]

The design flaw in the SAA design is an accepted historical fact. You cannot deny it just because it does not fit your argument
That was why the practice of carrying on an empty was started, to overcome the.
The gun is not manufactured to hold five rounds not four, a flaw in the design marry with a reduced number of rounds to make the gun safe
Arguing otherwise is absurd

The 1911 is safe to carry with a full load as it is designed with no extraordinary precautions, the FA and SAA are not
To argue otherwise is absurd

Correct.

WildyepverycorrectexpositionAlaska

 

[joab]

you might want to requote that quote
I am fighting off some kind of invasion that is freezing and unfreezing my keyboard and making weird sentences come out

 

[DonR101395]

The design flaw in the SAA design is an accepted historical fact. You cannot deny it just because it does not fit your argument
That was why the practice of carrying on an empty was started, to overcome the.
The gun is not manufactured to hold five rounds not four, a flaw in the design marry with a reduced number of rounds to make the gun safe
Arguing otherwise is absurd

The 1911 is safe to carry with a full load as it is designed with no extraordinary precautions, the FA and SAA are not
To argue otherwise is absurd

Correct.

WildyepverycorrectexpositionAlaska

Not getting off that easy. Using your argument of design flaws, if the 1911 wasn't flawed it wouldn't be produced now with a firing pin block. Would it??

 

[threegun]

If as you say the 1911 series 70 is designed to be carried with a loaded chamber why did colt come out with the series 80? To avoid what and for what reason?

Many use to carry the 1911 chamber empty to avoid accidental or better yet negligent discharges. It was also a well known practice to do so. So what?

If my SAA is sitting in my holster all chambers loaded can it fire all alone?

It wasn't until the 60's that this supposed "flaw" even became an issue. When Ruger was sued. Prior to the liberal movement in the 60's did anyone sue any manufacture for this "design flaw"?