Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[David Floyd]

A gun without a safety on is dangerous by default.

Really? So a gun, lying on a table with no safety on, is going to shoot you? All by itself?

Common sense.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you designed firearms for a living. In fact, it's quite obvious you don't know a damn thing about guns.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
A gun isn't inherently dangerous - it's a piece of metal. It becomes dangerous when people behave dangerously.

What obtuse logic -- a gun is inherently dangerous without its safety on. Why? Because it's a frickin' GUN. It's INTENT is to injure or KILL someone. It's loaded with GUNPOWDER and PROJECTILES.

Being made of metal does not stop it from being inherently dangerous.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

This is why the gun manufacturer is not 100% liable. But if I happen to rear-end one of those "explode on contact" Ford pickups from the 80s and it blows up, killing the driver then both Ford and I share the liability (even though I might have been acting like a dumbass to cause the accident)

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

Because there are guns that can be unloaded with the safety on.

[David Floyd]

What obtuse logic -- a gun is inherently dangerous without its safety on. Why? Because it's a frickin' GUN. It's INTENT is to injure or KILL someone. It's loaded with GUNPOWDER and PROJECTILES.

Being made of metal does not stop it from being inherently dangerous.

It requires a person to act in order to make it dangerous. It has the potential to be dangerous, yes, but I'd argue that idiots are far more dangerous than guns.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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?

That's why the have engineers. And it obviously was a dangerous "fix" for the defect.

People practicing proper gun safety is beside the point, he was found negligent as well. But, the gun, of made properly, wouldn't have gone off.

If they had designed the gun where you could only take the clip out with the safety off, they might have been alright.

But they didn't, the design was changed.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It requires a person to act in order to make it dangerous. It has the potential to be dangerous, yes, but I'd argue that idiots are far more dangerous than guns.

I agree with you there, especially idiots with defective guns.....

ACK!

[Berzerker]

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.

****ed if you gotta keep switching the safety on and off every time you want to pull and replace a clip. But I was thinking of a gun battle with 2 combatants hiding behind objects, not a kamikaze intruder who runs at you.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It requires a person to act in order to make it dangerous. It has the potential to be dangerous, yes, but I'd argue that idiots are far more dangerous than guns.

No, it's dangerous. I'd be edgy around it.

Same with a can full of nitroglycerine or a tube of chlorine gas.

Those are DANGEROUS THINGS.

[David Floyd]

But if I happen to rear-end one of those "explode on contact" Ford pickups from the 80s and it blows up, killing the driver then both Ford and I share the liability (even though I might have been acting like a dumbass to cause the accident)

I understand that, but we're talking about two different things. In the gun example, a babysitter picked up a gun, and, in an attempt to unload it, violated every known safety precaution imaginable to man and shot someone, who was doing nothing but standing there.

Your example does not require that degree of incompetence on the part of a single individual, nor is it the result of a legitimate design feature. Cars aren't supposed to blow up when you hit them, guns are supposed to load/unload quickly and go off when the pull the trigger. We're talking about the difference between defect in design, and a design feature that can ONLY become dangerous when an idiot disregards all know gun handling procedures.

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? So a gun, lying on a table with no safety on, is going to shoot you? All by itself?

Why are you even arguing this? The spirit of the argument is that a gun is a dangerous weapon, even if you're just holding it or touching it, or in any contact with it. With the safety off, it's INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Quit playing semantics, Floyd. Honestly, how does it help your argument that you assert guns are harmless when untouched?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you designed firearms for a living. In fact, it's quite obvious you don't know a damn thing about guns.

No, but I do know that's a rather trivial problem to solve. You don't need to design firearms to know that it's possible to design mechanics that can allow a safety to be turned on while the clip is removed and inserted.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I understand that, but we're talking about two different things. In the gun example, a babysitter picked up a gun, and, in an attempt to unload it, violated every known safety precaution imaginable to man and shot someone, who was doing nothing but standing there.

And if I was drunk, talking on the cell phone, masturbating and ogling the girls out my side window it wouldn't matter.

Ford designed a ****ty-ass gas tank and pays the price when an idiot hits someone driving a Ford pickup. The fact is that engineers need to make a product as safe as possible. Saving a few bucks by making you take off the safety more than necessary is an idiotic design fix. The gun company should pay the price when their cheapness comes around and bites them in the ass.

[David Floyd]

Tub,

People practicing proper gun safety is beside the point, he was found negligent as well. But, the gun, of made properly, wouldn't have gone off.

The gun was both made properly and performed exactly to specs - that is, pulling the trigger with the safety off will fire a bullet.

If they had designed the gun where you could only take the clip out with the safety off, they might have been alright.

I don't see the difference.

KH,

No, it's dangerous. I'd be edgy around it.

Same with a can full of nitroglycerine or a tube of chlorine gas.

Those are DANGEROUS THINGS.

OK, but if someone shakes up a can full of nitroglycerine and blows up their friend, who's liable? The company who produced the nitroglycerine or the idiot who shook it up? Sure, guns, nitroglycerine, and chlorine gas have the potential to be dangerous objects/substances - but if used properly, they are not. I just can't see how one can hold the manufacturer liable for improper - idiotic - use of their product. It would be like, say, suing a distillery because someone died from alcohol poisoning.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I understand that, but we're talking about two different things. In the gun example, a babysitter picked up a gun, and, in an attempt to unload it, violated every known safety precaution imaginable to man and shot someone, who was doing nothing but standing there.

Your example does not require that degree of incompetence on the part of a single individual, nor is it the result of a legitimate design feature. Cars aren't supposed to blow up when you hit them, guns are supposed to load/unload quickly and go off when the pull the trigger. We're talking about the difference between defect in design, and a design feature that can ONLY become dangerous when an idiot disregards all know gun handling procedures.

If this manufacturer had made the gun idiot proof, the kid wouldn't have been paralyzed.

They didn't protect themselves, they deserve what they got.

ACK!

[Berzerker]

C'mon, the babysitter was trying to unload the thing with his finger on the trigger and pointing it at the kid!!!
Sure, if the thing could be unloaded with the safety on this might not have happened (I'm assuming the babysitter wouldn't have clicked the safety off and pulled the trigger with the chamber still loaded), but to blame the manufacturer approaches silliness.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I understand that, but we're talking about two different things. In the gun example, a babysitter picked up a gun, and, in an attempt to unload it, violated every known safety precaution imaginable to man and shot someone, who was doing nothing but standing there.

Your example does not require that degree of incompetence on the part of a single individual, nor is it the result of a legitimate design feature. Cars aren't supposed to blow up when you hit them, guns are supposed to load/unload quickly and go off when the pull the trigger. We're talking about the difference between defect in design, and a design feature that can ONLY become dangerous when an idiot disregards all know gun handling procedures.

Cars are designed to be in accidents because people are ****wits and get into accidents. Guns should be designed to make it hard to shoot somebody by mistake because people are ****wits and hit the trigger accidentally while pointing the gun at somebody.