Freedom Arms loses really dumb lawsuit

[FirstFreedom]

Joab, Let it Bleed, WA, Musketeer ==> Right

Everyone else ==> wrong

Not complicated; use your brain to make critical distinctions folks.

 

[DonR101395]

Then why must extraordinary measures be taken to make the gun safe to carry?

Why will no one answer this question?

It's been answered many times, you just don't like the answers you're hearing
Keeping the hammer over an empty chamber on a single action revolver isn't extraordinary to some folks.

 

[threegun]

OK genius if that is true wouldn't that mean that the design flaw was fixed by a forward thinking company
Why could FA not do this, actually why did FA choose to discard the feature that was already incorporated in the design in the first place

Because the gun is fine when carried in accordance with factory recommendations...genius.

Carrying hammer down on an empty chamber is a precaution beyond the guns design that must be taken in order to make the FA safe to carry.

Which is common knowledge and accepted by anyone who purchases this type of firearm. The precaution is a remedy for negligent gun handling. Just as anyone carrying a Glock should cover the trigger area to prevent it from being pulled accidentally while carrying. Neither can go boom unless the user messes up.

 

[threegun]

Joab, If the FA or SAA is dropped does it automatically mean it will fire?

 

[joab]

It's been answered many times, you just don't like the answers you're hearing
Keeping the hammer over an empty chamber on a single action revolver isn't extraordinary to some folks.

It has not been answered,
You have simply denied the fact or played stupid little word games
I really don't cafe if you are ignorant to what extra ordinary means it doesn't change the fact that the action is extraordinary

The gun is not designed that way so why must that action be taken to make the gun safe?

Because the gun is fine when carried in accordance with factory recommendations...genius.

The gun is unsafe when carried according to it's design, non genius

Which is common knowledge and accepted by anyone who purchases this type of firearm..

The definition of extraordinary is also common knowledge, why are so many here ignorant of it

The precaution is a remedy for negligent gun handling.

Is carrying a gun in a holster negligent?
It is a precaution to remedy a design flaw
The gun is designed to be carried with five rounds this cannot be done safely
Why does no other revolver design require this "remedy"

Just as anyone carrying a Glock should cover the trigger area to prevent it from being pulled accidentally while carrying.

It doesn't take pulling the trigger to force n AD with the SAA design

Joab, If the FA or SAA is dropped does it automatically mean it will fire?

Where have I said that anything automatic?
The likely hood is great enough that extraordinary precautions must be taken to prevent it from happening. Do you deny this?

It takes a very weak argument to rely on simplistic word games
Extraordinary means beyond what is ordinary, if you don't like that then petition the Webster people to change it
In the meantime you can not change facts or the meaning of words to fit your argument

The FA was designed after Ruger showed that it was an unnecessarily dangerous and obsolete design
FA chose to create a firearm with a known and correctable defect
Can you honestly dispute this?

 

[DonR101395]

It has not been answered,
You have simply denied the fact or played stupid little word games
I really don't cafe if you are ignorant to what extra ordinary means it doesn't change the fact that the action is extraordinary

The gun is not designed that way so why must that action be taken to make the gun safe?

The question was answered and I really don't care if you're ignorant to the accepted practice of carrying an SAA type revolver. I find it funny that you keep insisting that everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant. I also find it funny that you can't/won't answer a single question asked of you. Remember the 1911 design?

 

[threegun]

The likely hood is great enough that extraordinary precautions must be taken to prevent it from happening. Do you deny this?

Yes I do deny this. I agree that precaution need be taken to insure that an ND doesn't happen. I disagree that it is a design flaw or that extra ordinary precautions must be taken with it. Thats why you neglected to answer my question........Joab, If the FA or SAA is dropped does it automatically mean it will fire? The chambers all loaded doesn't mean a guaranteed ND. To guarantee not to have an ND precautions should be taken big difference.

 

[joab]

Don
You again are arguing from emotion and making yourself look dumb

The definition of extraordinary is verifiable and no where have I even implied that I am ignorant of the carry method of the old SAA I even outlined how it is done

I find it funny that instead of actually answering the question you avoid it and claim to answer it

Saying that it is not true when it is known accepted practice is kinda dumb dont ya think

First you say that there is no extraordinary precaution necessary then you try to imply that I am ignorant of that practice even though I have repeatedly asked why that practice is necessary if the gun is safe to carry as designed.
And then you wonder why I question your reasoning ability.

What 1911 question am I avoiding?
What questions have I avoided? You say "every single one" that would imply that many have been asked that I have failed to answer

I have only asked one and that has not yet been answered, I wonder why that is

Stop claiming you answered it and answer it
Why must extra ordinary precautions be taken to mitigate the design flaw of the FA and SAA
If you don't like the word extraordinary put a more simplistic word in there, It won't change the fact that a precaution beyond what the gun was designed for has to be taken to make the gun safe.

The gun was designed to carry five rounds not four
This cannot be safely done due to the design of the gun, do you deny this?

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

 

[joab]

Yes I do deny this. I agree that precaution need be taken to insure that an ND doesn't happen.

That would be AD SAA are known to go off if the hammer is tripped by an outside force even while holstered, this is verifiable and historical fact

I disagree that it is a design flaw or that extra ordinary precautions must be taken with it.

So you feel that it is perfectly safe to carry the FA hammer down on a loaded chamber

Thats why you neglected to answer my question

.What question have I neglected to answer.

......Joab, If the FA or SAA is dropped does it automatically mean it will fire? The chambers all loaded doesn't mean a guaranteed ND.

I never said anything was automatic. Automatic is not the determining factor propensity is.
This automatic crap is merely diversionary tactic, There are no absolutes in life or mechanics to think that there must be shows immaturity

To guarantee not to have an ND precautions should be taken big difference.

And that difference has a name SEMANTICS. The precautions must be taken to make the gun safe to carry, where have I said different. If you are going to play word games if have to trick the other guy into playing along
And that would be an AD. NDs involve human error, unless you are considering the humans at the factory negligent for creating a flawed product


I'll make it as short bus as I can here, I won't even use big words like extraordinary

The gun is designed to carry five rounds. True?

In order to make the gun safe you must not load it with five rounds but must instead only load four True?

WHY?

If the design is safe why can it not be used to it's full potential as it was designed?
Like the 1911

 

[joab]

I find it funny that you keep insisting that everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

Typical simplistic statement by someone who cannot back up their argument and runs when asked to

Invisible heart disagrees with me
The difference is that he can intelligently present his point of view in an adult manner

One difference between you and me is that I like being proved wrong it means I have learned something.
You take it as a personal attack because it means you have to learn something

 

[farscott]

To me, it comes down to my belief that "Load one, skip one, load the rest, Cock the hammer, and lower the hammer to rest" is not extraordinary. People have been doing it since 1873 with a gun that is still in production today. It is not extraordinary to me, but I am willing to admit it must be to others today based on all of the questions about the FA 83 action. I still cannot make the leap that the FA 83 action is defective as it has worked just fine for about 130 years. Are there actions that do not require the empty chamber? Absolutely. Could FA have gone with them? I would assume so. Why did they not do so? My guess is because Dick Casull built his original guns with modified old Colt Model P actions. Remember that Dick Casull was experimenting with his magnum revolver well before 1973 and the New Model Blackhawk.

Has Ruger eliminated the need for the empty chamber with the New Model Blackhawk design? Yes. So has FA with the Model 1997 (FA 97). In fact, the FA 97 action uses a transfer bar. Is there any negative to incorporating the FA 97 transfer bar in the FA 83? According to those who own both, the FA 97 trigger is not the equal of the FA 83. In my experience, that is correct. The FA 97 action has a bit more slop in it based on my two FA 97s and experiences with several FA 83s.

Would I like an FA 83 that did not need to "Load one, skip one, load the rest"? I do not know, but I feel I have the opportunity to find out soon.

 

[Wildalaska]

Joab, Let it Bleed, WA, Musketeer ==> Right

Everyone else ==> wrong

Glad you recognized it, although I must say that in the everyone else category there are many unkown others who have the ability to understand the nature of modern tort law in other than simplistic emotional ones...

Its a freaking gun. Like a lawnmower or anything else. Just cause it goes bang doesnt mean its deus.

WilditsaginsuknifethatgoesbangAlaska

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Unregistered, insurance premiums are not a free lunch

Quote:
Profit margin has to include the expected payoff (cost) of $2.5M.

Thats not true, your profit margin just has to cover the cost of your insurance premiums.

Insurance premium includes the profit margin for the insurance company and the cost of the actual insurance if/when they occur so the total cost if using insurance, is more to society as a whole because cost of insurance includes profit margin for the insurance company PLUS actual cost of the even if/when it occurs.

Let's say that there is a 10% chance that sometime during next year, one of the 10 insured party will get sued for $10M and lose. The premiums from all ten members need to cover the expected liability cost of $10M next year plus operating profit margin for the insurance company to pay its staff and officers.

There is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it.

--John

 

[joab]

It doesn't matter how long the practice has been around
The fact is that the gun is designed to carry five rounds. It is also a fact that you must do the extra step (take the extra ordinary precaution) to circumvent the fact that the gun is not safe to carry as it was designed

There seems to be some resistance to the word extraordinary
I would suggest a quick trip to an online dictionary to correct the misconception that extra ordinary means anything more than beyond what is ordinary in this case

If it were not an extra ordinary precaution then all revolvers would be loaded this was and/or there would not be a hole where number five is supposed to go.

Regardless of what word you chose to dissect
The gun is not safe to carry with five rounds, this is undisputed
But yet the gun allows five rounds to be loaded, this is also undisputed

When the very nature of a thing makes it unsafe to use as designed then the design is flawed
Ruger proved this in 1973

Would anyone here advocate putting drum brakes all the way around on a modern passenger car
NO, simply because by todays standards the design is flawed and has a propensity to fail when driven in wet conditions
Would it be the driver's fault if he got into a wreck while driving at normal highway speeds in a car with drum brakes?
Partially yes because he did not take the extraordinary precaution of not driving on wet roads and/or failed to recognized the decreased stopping ability of those brakes in wet conditions
But the manufacturer would also be held liable for creating a modern vehicle with a known design flaw while promoting it as a safe vehicle

The design is flawed people
Why else can you not safely use the gun to it's full potential as it was designed

I still cannot make the leap that the FA 83 action is defective as it has worked just fine for about 130

If you call over 600 recorded deaths and injuries due to the design plus the inability to take advantage of the full potential of the design due to safety concerns fine, I don't
Defective may not be the appropriate word because that implies that the gun does not work as designed ,that the gun cannot be safely carried to full design specifications is definitively a flaw in the design

Has Ruger eliminated the need for the empty chamber with the New Model Blackhawk design? Yes. So has FA with the Model 1997 (FA 97). In fact, the FA 97 action uses a transfer bar.

Which is why the 97 was not subject to the lawsuit

Would I like an FA 83 that did not need to "Load one, skip one, load the rest"? I do not know, but I feel I have the opportunity to find out soon.

That will be dictated by the laws of supply and demand and diminishing returns and benefit vs risk

Will the lawsuit make people afraid to buy the gun or will it make them go out a buy it for fear of discontinuation, only time will tell
No one is forcing FA's hand

 

[theinvisibleheart]

joab, litigation/safety feature

Quote:
Threat of a litigation or past successful litigation creates a drag and raises the cost of the product. Say, I have 25% probability that I would be sued for $10M during next 10 years. So expected cost=25% x $10M or $2.5M. I expect to produce and sell 10,000 revolvers with flawed design. Profit margin has to include the expected payoff (cost) of $2.5M.

The FA has every right and reason to enter these figures in their benefits versus risks equations

joab, if FA or any other companies enter "these figures" which are really cost of the product, then it raises the price because a firm cannot exist on zero profit. Litigation or threat of litigation raises the cost of a product. When the price of a product goes up, volume of sales usu. goes down, all things being equal. So the company sells less.

In lot of the cases, if the profit margin is too low, it's not worth it for the company or the investor.

However, w/o litigation or threat of a litigation, cost of the product is lower. That means, the company can make the same product for less and sell it at a lower price with larger volume at same or higher profit margin.


This means that a product which may not have being profitable before, is now profitable and worth making. Because of litigation and threat of litigation, many products which are possible and profitable w/o litigation does not make it to the market.


BTW, litigation or threat of a litigation raises the price of a product just like bribery so common in Third World. Cost of insurance premium or possibility of future lawsuit has to be borne by the product price. In the end, it's the consumers who are paying for it.

What exactly would be lost in the gun if a $10 transfer bar was included on this $1000 plus gun

Especially when we remember that the guns were originally designed on Ruger BlackHawks which had the T bars

Individual preferences are best decided by the market, not through litigation. I'm not wise enough to decide who should get what features, including safety, with which guns. That should be up to each individual based on individual preferences and how much they are willing to pay for what feature.

Quote:
If an individual feel unsafe with Old Model Ruger single design, then they shouldn't buy one.

Which is exactly why Ruger designed the T-bars in the first place
Now we're back to the benefit and risk thing again
And you have to try hard to find an unmolested Old Model anymore

What happens if citizen Joe wants Old Model Ruger single action w/o transfer bar? W/o litigation but if there was a demand for transfer bar, most probably, either Ruger or a third company would have produced a retrofit transfer bar kit instead of current solution.

--John

 

[joab]

Joab, Let it Bleed, WA, Musketeer ==> Right

Everyone else ==> wrong

Actually there are only two or three or so that are wrong , the rest of us have a difference of opinion

What is so funny to me is that the last conversation WA and I were in I stormed off and called him a prima dona troll. Mostly because he question my position in such a way that I could not respond
Every once in awhile we have to be reminded of why we get into these debates, to prove our points not just shout them and run

If you can not maintain your position it is too weak to maintain.
Learned that one in the Army

 

[theinvisibleheart]

joab, litigation=>higher product price=>change everybody

That will be dictated by the laws of supp;y and demand and diminishing returns

Will the lawsuit make people afraid to buy the gun or will it make them go out a buy it for fear of discontinuation, only time will tell

No one is forcing FA's hand

What litigation and threat of litigation does is to affect producers directly and consumers indirectly.

Safety is a feature like everything else...not only are there additional cost associated with it, there are individual preferences for it.

It affects producers (e.g. FA) by raising the price of product which it sells. However, its greatest cost to the society as a whole lies in unseen products which never makes it to the market because the potential cost of litigation is too high.

Litigation and threat of litigation indirectly affects the consumers because they pay higher prices for various goods and services. There is no free lunch. Corporate defense lawyers and insurance premium, as well as cost of lost litigation, has to be paid either by consumers and/or investors. Consumers pay for it in form of higher prices. Investors pay for it via lower profit margin for the company, driving the stock price down.

--John

 

[joab]

What was the increase in price of the Ruger handguns after 1973 and again after '83?
As far as I remember they were still about the cheapest of the major manufacturers of the time

I agree that over litigation is a costly effect of the new Americana, but adding the transfer bar would not have adversely effected production or price

The first FA came off the line a full ten years after the advent and acceptance of the transfer bar safety, this was not an oversight and I find it very hard to believe that it was a cost cutting measure

 

[theinvisibleheart]

joab, nominal vs. real price and market place knowledge

What was the increase in price of the Ruger handguns after 1973 and again after '83?
As far as I remember they were still about the cheapest of the major manufacturers of the time

I agree that over litigation is a costly effect of the new Americana, but adding the transfer bar would not have adversely effected production or price

The first FA came off the line a full ten years after the advent and acceptance of the transfer bar safety, this was not an oversight and I find it very hard to believe that it was a cost cutting measure

joab,

there are nominal price (what you pay) and real price (inflation/cost-of-living adjusted price). While people are often amazed by how cheap things were so many decades back, in general, relative to rise in cost of living, most things, including guns, are getting cheaper. About the only exception to this are pre-86 NFA full auto guns because they can no longer be imported or made.

Each firm probably knows more about its internal operations and its market segment than outsiders. If FA made its guns w/o transfer bar safety, it was probably because its targeted market segment did not desire it.

Folks I know who shoot single action guns, usu. know if their guns have transfer bar or not, and carry their guns accordingly.

This applies not only to guns but to other items. I've used knife sharpeners with and w/o hand guard. If all knife sharpeners are to come with handguard due to litigation in court, what would happen to all the peoples who don't want one due to their own personal preferences?

--John

 

[Justme]

Conflicts happen. Litigation is a civilized response to conflict. If litigation became less available then many people may resort to more expensive and/or violent methods of redress.

The fact that an average american feels comfortable suing cops, large business, medical professionals and their own bosses is a very good thing. More postal employees need to get their day in court and maybe they wouldn't go insane?

Much better to pay lawyers and judges in civil actions than criminal actions where jails and cops are involved.