 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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?
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Tub,
quote:
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.
quote:
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,
quote:
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
|
|
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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 shitty-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. |
Yes, but the scenario is different. In the car example, one can rear end another vehicle even while following every imaginable method of safe, defensive driving. Some things are just unavoidable. And some things aren't. You can't predict, when you're designing a gun, what every idiot will do, and design safety features to accomodate all those idiots. There is plenty of safety literature out there, to say nothing of common sense, for people to know not to point a gun, loaded or unloaded at anyone else, ever, even if it is just while maintaining the firearm.
Furthermore, there is another difference. There are federal regulations for the design and manufacture of gasoline tanks, and virtually every other aspect of automobile design. How much you wanna bet some of those regulations were violated? But you know how many regulations were violated by the gun manufacturer? None that I'm aware of, and if there were, then I'll be more than happy to back down my argument.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Tub,
quote:
If this manufacturer had made the gun idiot proof, the kid wouldn't have been paralyzed. |
You are handing out blame and responsibility where it doesn't belong. Without the idiot violating gun safety procedures, this wouldn't have happened. If he'd accidentally flipped the safety from on to off, there would still be people out there wanting to hold the manufacturer liable for not including trigger locks, or handprint signatures, or something else to make it even more idiot proof.
I will say this, though - you build me an idiot proof anything, and I'll find you an idiot to defeat it.
quote:
Cars are designed to be in accidents because people are ****wits and get into accidents. |
True, but the level of incompetence required to accidentally rear end someone, and the level of incompetence required to accidentally shoot someone are on two entirely different planes of idiocy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Untrue -- if you rear-end you clearly weren't keeping a safe following distance. I think that's against the law too. |
While that's the law, it isn't necessarily the reality. People can slam on their brakes suddenly on the highway, they can pull out in front of you and slam on their brakes, you can get rear-ended by someone and pushed into someone else, etc., etc., etc. There are numerous ways to rear end someone without being all that idiotic.
KH,
quote:
Now imagine that the designer of the machine made the design such that my girlfriend had to engage all 6 interlocks to reposition one of the machines and some idiot turned on the thing (despite the fact that she could be seen via video monitor. Is the manufacturer responsible? Hell yes. |
I would imagine there are federal safety regulations regarding the manufacture of machines that emit radiation, not to mention the whole set of regulations that go with working in a facility receiving federal funding. You are again comparing apples and oranges.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
|
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, but the scenario is different. In the car example, one can rear end another vehicle even while following every imaginable method of safe, defensive driving. Some things are just unavoidable. And some things aren't. You can't predict, when you're designing a gun, what every idiot will do, and design safety features to accomodate all those idiots. There is plenty of safety literature out there, to say nothing of common sense, for people to know not to point a gun, loaded or unloaded at anyone else, ever, even if it is just while maintaining the firearm.
Furthermore, there is another difference. There are federal regulations for the design and manufacture of gasoline tanks, and virtually every other aspect of automobile design. How much you wanna bet some of those regulations were violated? But you know how many regulations were violated by the gun manufacturer? None that I'm aware of, and if there were, then I'll be more than happy to back down my argument. |
Umm, according to this article:
Bryco Arms Files for Bankruptcy
7/14/2003
Bryco Arms, the Costa Mesa, Calif., gunmaker that was recently found liable in an unintentional shooting, has filed for bankruptcy and may shut down its operations, the Daily Pilot reported July 8.
Bryco Arms, which makes low-price handguns, sought bankruptcy protection more than a month ago. "Theoretically, they could put together a plan and reorganize," said Ned Nashban, Bryco's bankruptcy lawyer. "It's too early to tell."
A few months ago, an Oakland, Calif., jury found Bryco Arms 10 percent liable and three gun distributors 35 percent liable in the 1994 unintentional shooting of Brandon Maxfield. A friend of Maxfield's shot him in the jaw as he was trying to unload a 38-caliber Bryco handgun.
The company's guns had a reputation for jamming.
Richard Ruggieri, who represented Maxfield, said Bryco's bankruptcy should serve as a warning for all gun manufacturers that produce flawed weapons. He said Bryco allocated minimal resources to test their guns to ensure safe operation.
"If anything forces them out of business, it's their arrogant failure to consult an engineer," Ruggieri said. "It's beyond irresponsible. It's parasitic."
Oops. Read the bolded parts.
ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
I'm not sure how the article adds anything new to the discussion. Could they have designed it differently? Sure, probably so, although I'll defer to the experts. Does/should that make them liable for idiots? No, I don't think so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
They decided to be cheap and their product killed somebody. |
Again, WRONG. The product performed EXACTLY to specs. The babysitter killed someone, first by picking up a gun, which he obviously knew little about, then by pointing it at a person, which even basic common sense should tell you not to do, and then, finally, by pulling the trigger.
quote:
The law doesn't have to say "must be able to be unloaded with safety on" for the engineer to be held liable. |
And that's part of the problem I have. The design was not illegal, and the design was not even unsafe. To be unsafe, the design would have to cause the gun either a)to go off by itself, or b)not to perform to specs in some other way resulting in actual or potential harm. Neither was the case. The gun did not go off by itself, nor did it fail to perform as every other gun performs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2004 10:33
But I was thinking of a gun battle with 2 combatants hiding behind objects, not a kamikaze intruder who runs at you.
I think that's against the law too. 
|