What the heck is going on..?

[Jerry]

This makes me sick....an judge and jury put a gun manufacturer out of business because a nimrod accidentaly shoots someone?


http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D84BTNF80_story



This really pisses me off!

JR

[Jim Rund]

Wow! can't think of anything else to say

[G22]

Wow! can't think of anything else to say


I can...Who the F is the troll who voted Yes?

[HK USP]

Who is Bryco never heard of em. But this figures out of Komiefornia, no real jury would award individual stupidity, his baby sitter shot him sue them, but wait they don't have millions in insurance to tap off, oops they stopped that didn't they with a no excessive settlement law for insurance claims. Go figure.

[bluethunder]

Who is Bryco never heard of em.


Isn't Bryco the company that used to make Jennings pistols?

[taurus92]

Well no they should not be but who in the world thought the mag release on the trigger was a good idea? That just begs for a negligient discharge especially by someone who is not familiar with the firearm.

[Jim Simmons]

The "poll" question is about as slanted as it gets, but I understand the outrage.

It was a poorly designed gun, and dangerous. I don't like that there's one less firearms manufacturer out there, but I won't weep over this one. This is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool design defect.

Beyond that, what is happening in the bankruptcy proceedings is going by the book. The kid will have to bid just like any other bidder. And if he wins, that means he's paid the most money for the benefit of it's creditors, and it's his to do with what he will. If he wants to melt 'em down to make a statue, so be it.

[Jerry]

Ok...the way I see it is

1-that the kid should not have picked up the firearm and

2-the mother should not have told him to unload it since she knew the babysitter had no clue(idea) what he or she was doing.

3-the gun by itself would have not hurt anyone if it was not handled improperly.

4-the mother is/was responsible for that handgun and she failed herself the babysitter and her child by not storing her firearm properly.

As to the manufacturers being liable for improper handling of a firearm....I guess the manufacturers will have to make the guns without triggers so that fools cant shoot them......(I gotta watch what I say cause someone is gonna ask me why I cant get my gun to shoot) :(

[Jerry]

By the way thanks for voting on this poll it was a spur of the moment thing and I appreciate the feedback......

JR

[olechopper]

Follow the money trail,, The article in the frepress said that the parents and the babysitter didn,t have any money, so go after the manufacturer..
get their money.... jpmo


Steve

[taurus92]

Follow the money trail,, The article in the frepress said that the parents and the babysitter didn,t have any money, so go after the manufacturer..
get their money.... jpmo


Steve

And they were also found to be at leeast 50% at fault. So they hahve just as much tot pay but never will because they nnever will havee the money. Read the whole article.

[aimstraight]

Follow the money trail,, The article in the frepress said that the parents and the babysitter didn,t have any money, so go after the manufacturer..
get their money.... jpmo


Steve

But that is the way society thinks now a days. Who can I sue to make money fast... hmmm.

[Jerry]

Follow the money trail,, The article in the frepress said that the parents and the babysitter didn,t have any money, so go after the manufacturer..
get their money.... jpmo


Steve

And they were also found to be at leeast 50% at fault. So they hahve just as much tot pay but never will because they nnever will havee the money. Read the whole article.

Mark...when you say they were found at least 50% at fault...do you mean the parent the babysitter or the gun manufacturer?

JR

[taurus92]

Follow the money trail,, The article in the frepress said that the parents and the babysitter didn,t have any money, so go after the manufacturer..
get their money.... jpmo


Steve

And they were also found to be at leeast 50% at fault. So they hahve just as much tot pay but never will because they nnever will havee the money. Read the whole article.

Mark...when you say they were found at least 50% at fault...do you mean the parent the babysitter or the gun manufacturer?

JR

Babysitter and Parent



A jury in Oakland assigned more than half the blame for what happened to the boy's parents and the babysitter who fired the gun. But they said the gun maker also was liable because the pistol could only be unloaded when its trigger safety catch was switched off.

The jury awarded damages totaling $50.9 million - an amount calculated to compensate Maxfield for pain and suffering, future medical and educational expenses, lost earnings and diminished life expectancy.

[Jerry]

Hmmmmmm.....maybe the gun manufacturer should not have to pay till the babysitter and parent come up with their share?

:D

JR

[taurus92]

Hmmmmmm.....maybe the gun manufacturer should not have to pay till the babysitter and parent come up with their share?

:D

JR

i am aall for defending manufacturers but this is a serious design flaw. Why the heeck have a mag release as part of the trigger. that is just begging for a neglegiant discharge.

[One of Many]

The article stated that the gun could not be unloaded without disengaging the safety. This is common in semiauto handguns, that lock the slide closed when the safety is engaged.

You can remove the magazine with the safety engaged. In order to remove the cartridge from the chamber you must disengage the safety before you can cycle the slide open and eject the cartidge.

The problem is not a design flaw, it is an opportunity for careless and/or ignorant gun handlers to pull the trigger when they don't intend too.

As long as the trigger is not pulled, there is no improper discharge of a round.

The gun design is not flawed, but the operators gun handling is flawed.

[ANIMAL]

And of course it was pointed in a safe direction.

[Jerry]

I dunno.....I still feel that this is not what should happen to the manufacturer.

I will give an example....remember back in the day when most cars had stick shifts? Well some were on the floor and they had different shift patterns some with reverse all the way to the right and down, some all the way to the left and up and even some that were all the way to the left and down now if someone borrowed your car and you told them that reverse was all the way to the left and up but when they actually had to use reverse for the first time they went all the way to the left and down which is first gear in most vehicles and let the clutch out and ran into a pedestrian and killed the individual.....does that make the manufacturer liable for a wrongful death?

I dont think so.....and I feel the blame is on the babysitter and the parent that told the ignorant babysitter to do something he/she had no business doing in the first place.(maybe ignorant is too harsh a word....how about clueless?)



JMOO.....JR

[taurus92]

I dunno.....I still feel that this is not what should happen to the manufacturer.

I will give an example....remember back in the day when most cars had stick shifts? Well some were on the floor and they had different shift patterns some with reverse all the way to the right and down, some all the way to the left and up and even some that were all the way to the left and down now if someone borrowed your car and you told them that reverse was all the way to the left and up but when they actually had to use reverse for the first time they went all the way to the left and down which is first gear in most vehicles and let the clutch out and ran into a pedestrian and killed the individual.....does that make the manufacturer liable for a wrongful death?

I dont think so.....and I feel the blame is on the babysitter and the parent that told the ignorant babysitter to do something he/she had no business doing in the first place.(maybe ignorant is too harsh a word....how about clueless?)



JMOO.....JR

But none required the key in the ignition and running plus a "safety' on the gas pedal to shift now did they?

[Jerry]

I dunno.....I still feel that this is not what should happen to the manufacturer.

I will give an example....remember back in the day when most cars had stick shifts? Well some were on the floor and they had different shift patterns some with reverse all the way to the right and down, some all the way to the left and up and even some that were all the way to the left and down now if someone borrowed your car and you told them that reverse was all the way to the left and up but when they actually had to use reverse for the first time they went all the way to the left and down which is first gear in most vehicles and let the clutch out and ran into a pedestrian and killed the individual.....does that make the manufacturer liable for a wrongful death?

I dont think so.....and I feel the blame is on the babysitter and the parent that told the ignorant babysitter to do something he/she had no business doing in the first place.(maybe ignorant is too harsh a word....how about clueless?)



JMOO.....JR

But none required the key in the ignition and running plus a "safety' on the gas pedal to shift now did they?



No but they DID have to have a drivers license. (or should I say should have a drivers license...:) ).

[taurus92]

I dunno.....I still feel that this is not what should happen to the manufacturer.

I will give an example....remember back in the day when most cars had stick shifts? Well some were on the floor and they had different shift patterns some with reverse all the way to the right and down, some all the way to the left and up and even some that were all the way to the left and down now if someone borrowed your car and you told them that reverse was all the way to the left and up but when they actually had to use reverse for the first time they went all the way to the left and down which is first gear in most vehicles and let the clutch out and ran into a pedestrian and killed the individual.....does that make the manufacturer liable for a wrongful death?

I dont think so.....and I feel the blame is on the babysitter and the parent that told the ignorant babysitter to do something he/she had no business doing in the first place.(maybe ignorant is too harsh a word....how about clueless?)



JMOO.....JR

But none required the key in the ignition and running plus a "safety' on the gas pedal to shift now did they?



No but they DID have to have a drivers license. (or should I say should have a drivers license...:) ).

That is a "should"...

Heck you can register a car / motorcycle without a license. Plus get every single question wrong on a renewal and still be handed a license. but then again a drivers license is a privelage and it is thee RIGHT to bear arms.

[Jerry]

I dunno.....I still feel that this is not what should happen to the manufacturer.

I will give an example....remember back in the day when most cars had stick shifts? Well some were on the floor and they had different shift patterns some with reverse all the way to the right and down, some all the way to the left and up and even some that were all the way to the left and down now if someone borrowed your car and you told them that reverse was all the way to the left and up but when they actually had to use reverse for the first time they went all the way to the left and down which is first gear in most vehicles and let the clutch out and ran into a pedestrian and killed the individual.....does that make the manufacturer liable for a wrongful death?

I dont think so.....and I feel the blame is on the babysitter and the parent that told the ignorant babysitter to do something he/she had no business doing in the first place.(maybe ignorant is too harsh a word....how about clueless?)



JMOO.....JR

But none required the key in the ignition and running plus a "safety' on the gas pedal to shift now did they?



No but they DID have to have a drivers license. (or should I say should have a drivers license...:) ).

That is a "should"...

Heck you can register a car / motorcycle without a license. Plus get every single question wrong on a renewal and still be handed a license. but then again a drivers license is a privelage and it is thee RIGHT to bear arms.

Heck, just because someone may own a car doesnt necessarily make them responsible.