Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[Asher]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I thought the same thing, you should be able to load and unload it with or without the safety. But you don't want a gun that can only be loaded or unloaded with the safety on since you don't have the time to be fumbling with the safety when an intruder is attacking you.

If you're forced to reload while an intruder is attacking you, I think you've either got such incredibly bad aim that you shouldn't have a gun anywhere near you, or you're hopelessly outnumbered and are ****ed anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey. Floyd:

the pistol could only be unloaded when its trigger safety catch was switched off

Get the point?

[KrazyHorse]

I understand why you'd design a gun which could be unloaded while the safety was off.

I don't understand why you would design one which could only be unloaded when the safety was off.

[Tuberski]

Yeah, it's called idiot-proofing.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Taking the safety off on a gun immediately makes it much, much, much more dangerous.

Accidents happen because people are idiots.

Why the **** would you put something on the market which would increase the amount of time a gun would spend with its safety off?

[David Floyd]

Asher,

And why should a regular citizen have a gun designed for military and police forces? Either way, we have a problem...

Why shouldn't a private citizen own a handgun used by the military or police? Hell, most categories of handguns - from 22s to 45s, and everything in between - ARE used by either the police or military. And that being the case, why design a handgun that must be unloaded with the safety on?

If you're forced to reload while an intruder is attacking you, I think you've either got such incredibly bad aim that you shouldn't have a gun anywhere near you, or you're hopelessly outnumbered and are ****ed anyway.

And do you think you can predict every eventuality? I certainly don't. I don't want to try to predict every eventuality for scenarios involving the use of a firearm for self defense, either by myself or by the police/military.

Tuberski/KH,

If the gun manufacturer had made the gun with the ability to unload it while safed, it wouldn't have gone off.

I don't understand why you would design one which could only be unloaded when the safety was off.

Then you didn't read the article - that design feature was in place to correct a jamming problem. A jamming problem WOULD have been a defect in the design of the gun, and the defect was corrected.

[David Floyd]

Accidents happen because people are idiots.

Exactly. Hold the idiots responsible for their own idiocy. I would think a criminal negligence charge, at least, would be in order for the babysitter.

Why the **** would you put something on the market which would increase the amount of time a gun would spend with its safety off?

That's already explained - it corrected an ACTUAL defect in the gun.

[KrazyHorse]

I certainly did read the article.

Gun manufacturer screws up the design. Gun manufacturer decides to fix the screwup in the cheapest manner possible which results in the fact that the gun is much less safe. Gun manufacturer gets sued.

Sounds good to me.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then you didn't read the article - that design feature was in place to correct a jamming problem. A jamming problem WOULD have been a defect in the design of the gun, and the defect was corrected.

Ther would have been a better way, this was just more "cost effective" It's not a fix for a defect.

It's a workaround.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Do you have a camera on me KH?



ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, the above is repeated all the time. Replace "gun" with "car".

[David Floyd]

Ther would have been a better way, this was just more "cost effective" It's not a fix for a defect.

So? It certainly wasn't a dangerous fix for the defect - that is, if people would practice proper gun safety procedures and not point guns, whether LOADED OR UNLOADED, at anything they don't want to shoot. It's sorta common sense, like looking both ways before you cross the street, or being careful when you're jumping your friend's car.

And in any case, how do YOU know there was a better way?

[KrazyHorse]

Nah, Tubes. We're just on the same wavelength.

When you're manufacturing dangerous equipment you assume liability for what happens with that equipment, if you didn't make the product safe enough.

Saving $$$ by producing a half-assed design fix is going to cost you big every time. Guns, cars, baby carriages etc.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So? It certainly wasn't a dangerous fix for the defect

A gun without a safety on is dangerous by default.

And in any case, how do YOU know there was a better way?

Common sense.

[David Floyd]

Gun manufacturer screws up the design. Gun manufacturer decides to fix the screwup in the cheapest manner possible which results in the fact that the gun is much less safe.

The gun was not made any more or any less safe by the fix of the defect, nor did the fix create any additional defect (although, thankfully, y'all seem to concede that point to me at least). A gun isn't inherently dangerous - it's a piece of metal. It becomes dangerous when people behave dangerously.

By the way, the above is repeated all the time. Replace "gun" with "car".

The two are not remotely similar, although I would also not agree with most torts involved in car crashed, at least, not with torts that result from someone being criminally negligent.