Gun victim plans takeover revenge on manufacturer

by ignored_one 18 Replies latest social current

  • kilroy2
    kilroy2

    I understand what you are saying now.

    But the gun still did notghing wrong, I dont believe in saftys on guns, if gives a false sence of security, I have seen many people handle guns recklessly because they think the gun is safe. slam fires take place because there is no spring keeping the fireing pin in the rear posistion and the inertia can fire a round, It does not happen ofter but can happen, I totaly dissagree with the statment about piece of crap guns being out lawed, Many of my guns are highly valuable, my collection alone is in the 45k value. but I have also owned jennings guns, davis, and raven, all family related manufactures of inexpensive guns. they for the most part on the low cal. guns have no hammer, they use a striker fireing system, some people dont like it because it can be done cheeply, but glock used the same type of system, I have had very little toruble with my jennings, I on the other hand have had trouble with my smith and wesson 4506 w. laser sight, an 900 gun, I had to send it back to s&w to find out why it jamed all the time, in the end it was the clips. they issured new ones and all is well.

    I had a davis 380 auto. I bought it new for 79 usd, cheep and it worked great, never jamed, not a good looking gun but some one who cant afford a 500 usd browning it would work great for. I am not in favor of baning something because it is not expensive, that is elitist, also yes you can buy a mossburg shot gun for appx 290 new, 150 maybe used, but mossburg is the low end of the shot gun group, so maybe we should ban them because you can or should get a ruger redlable for 3k? the other point is yes a 12 ga, will do the job better than any hand gun, why take a pistol to a gun fight when you can bring artillary, but shot guns even in a pistol girp short bbl. config. are very heavy and long and more difficult to use, I can just see single mom carring a mossburg in her tote bag.

    In short all companys make guns that do not preform for the money, I will not buy a weatherby why? because you get bells and whistles for your money, I will stay with rem,or savage for a hunting rifle. In gun test savage shoots consistantly tighter groups over almost all competers, and for far less $.

    The other point I would like to make is a cop friend of mine when some states were baning the so called sat night spec. was told that in those states that the crime gangs were now using high cap. 9mm and 45 autos on the cops instead of the low priced 22 and 25 autos because they were not being sold in the state.

    In the end you can point and counter point but the second amendment give me and you the right to have firearms. those who say that it ment the national guard well the guard did not exist at the time of the bill of rights, so we were the millita,

    And I was not trying to be insensitive about brady, but she shamlessly uses his dissability for her own perpous, by the way look close at the video of the regan shooting next time, and you will see jims own colt python next to him when he is on the ground, he had pulled his own gun, and yes hinkly should have never been able to buy a gun, and if memory serves he lied on his application. we now have the nic's system, and it is helping, I am not against regulation of guns, but stupid laws designed to stop ownership of guns. like the assault wepons ban. {dead in sep. of 04 thank god} my 7400 rem. workes the same as my ak47 and can have 30 round clips put in it. and the round 3006 is twice as deadly as 7.62x39, it was a cosmetic ban. that is why you can still buy the same guns with the bayonet lug taken off today for the same price as they were going for in 89. I am looking forward to november when I hope the underfolding stocks will be legal again on the aks. Instead of 1100 usd, maybe I can pick one up for 350, another baby to adopt. so many children and so little time. they all need good homes.

  • Simon
    Simon

    STOP SHOUTING !!

  • Simon
    Simon
    hinkly should have never been able to buy a gun, and if memory serves he lied on his application. we now have the nic's system, and it is helping, I am not against regulation of guns, but stupid laws designed to stop ownership of guns

    Well, that's a brilliant system isn't it. Kind of like the "are you a terrorist?" box on the customs forms.

    If you have a mix of idiots and freely available guns then you will get people being shot. Doesn't take too much working out really. However responsible you may be, the fact that guns are easy to obtain means that they will be misused. Therefore, the only sane and sensible thing to do would be to limit access to them.

    The only stupid laws when it comes to guns is letting so many people have them.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    I held a gun licence for many years. I understand also the fascination with guns, especially for anyone who has ever owned a London or Birmingham gun. The engineering alone make them objects of interest. One gun-maker, referring to the fine clearance distances on his hand-made weapons, would aim to get the moving parts just "a wisp of smoke" different in size.

    On the other hand, I also happen to think that I am probably the only person in the whole wide world whom I would trust completely with a gun.

    Englishman.

  • exjdub
    exjdub
    Maybe I have a problem with the idea of the Government being the only one with a gun. You lefties on here barate our Government/President left and right for all the bad decisions/questional motivations/Patriot act etc..etc.. but yet you want them to be in control of all firearms?? Talk about setting the wheels in motion for a dictatorship

    Crazy151,

    Be careful with generalizations. I have posted on threads where I have been accused of being a "leftie" because of my views toward George Bush (although I am an Independent), and yet, I agree with your comments about control of firearams and the government being the only one with a gun/dictatorship, etc.. I do not own a gun, never have actually, but I feel strongly about having the right to own one and the day that the government decides to eliminate that right is the day that I get one.

    It is interesting that you note the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act and gun control have the same issue in common: Too much government control at the great expense of personal privacy and personal freedom. If you disagree with gun control then you should feel the same way about the Patriot Act don't you think? If I have read your threads correctly, however, I don't believe I have heard you criticize Bush for the Patriot Act, or about anything for that matter.

    As far as the lawsuit against the gun manufacturer...the gun, which according to you who are knowledgeble on this thread, malfunctioned and is a piece of garbage. ANY manufacturer of a product that is designed poorly, or malfunctions because of poor manufacturing, is, and ahould be, liable and guilty of negligence. The court found that a percentage of the blame fell on the babysitter and the parents, so they did have some responsibility as well, and it was noted. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

    exjdub

  • Gerard
    Gerard
    Bryco was found liable on the grounds that the faulty design of its gun, the P-38 semi-automatic, was partly to blame for the incident. To unload it the safety catch had to be released

    I have never seen a semi-automatic pistol that does not do that. It is not a faulty design; Handling weapons requires both knowledge of the technology AND technique.

    Just wondering, if the baby sitter was the one who shot him, why did he sued the gun manufacturer? The father is the most guilty one for letting the gun available to those kids. How did he get off the hook? And obviously his parents did not want "justice" but money.

  • exjdub
    exjdub

    Gerard,

    Thanks for the clarification. If that is true with all semi-automatic pistols then I might feel differently. I do agree that nobody should handle a gun that does not know how to properly do so. As far as the gun manufacturer getting sued...our legal system loves deep pockets don't they?

    exjdub

  • TD
    TD
    If that is true with all semi-automatic pistols then I might feel differently.

    It's by no means true of all semi-automatic pistols. It only applies to slide and some action block safeties.

    To take a more modern design for example: The manual safety Ruger 'P' series (e.g. p89, p90, p94, p944) incorporate as the primary safety, a "decocker" lever, which does four things:

    (1) The firing pin is cammed forward into the slide so that the hammer cannot touch it.

    (2) The firing pin is blocked.

    (3) The hammer mechanism is disengaged from the trigger.

    (4) The hammer is harmlessly dropped onto the slide. (Decocked)

    However the slide is not blocked, so the magazine can be removed and the weapon taken out of battery with the decocker safety on. In fact, the Ruger 'P' series manual specifically states on page 10:

    "The pistol can and should be loaded and unloaded with the safety engaged in it's "Safe" position, (Lever fully down, white dot and the letter 'S' exposed.) The safety should be in its "Safe" position at all times except when the user is deliberately positioned to fire at a selected target."

    This makes the type of accidental discharge from unsafe handling which resulted in the Bryco/Jennings lawsuit virtually impossible.

  • kilroy2
    kilroy2

    I have a colt 1903 pocket pistol and you have to take the safty off to unload it,

    many autos do not need the safty taken off to unload them, but eather way the gun did not do any thing wrong. It did not blow up, It did not pick it self up and shoot someone.

    The reason that the scumbag atty. sued the gun manufacture is they have the insurance for liability, to sue the shooter you could get a boom box and a gold tooth, So the gun company goes bankurpt and starts again. That is the protection of the system. If we take that away form a gun manufacture, than we can take it away from you when things get bad and you need it.

    When we introduce emotion in to law, we get bad law.

    How can we take away free speach from the neo nazi down the street and keep free speach for the green peace terrorist?

    Do we only keep laws we like for the people we like?

    I absoluty hate green peace and democrats and liberals, but they have every right to spew their crap, Not to mention that we have a bill of rights that gives us the right to have and bear arms.

    And this is not a collective right, the bill of rights was for the individule, no national guard was created when the bill of rights was writen, the only thing close to the national guard was the tores and I think that was not what the framers had in mind when the bill of rights was writen, also the second amendment was not for duck hunting, it was to keep the power in the hands of the people. because the framers new very well that power made tyrants of leaders. and that is what the reveloution was all about, we broke the bonds of tyrany, look at the feet of the statue of liberty, the broken chain which signifies freedom from tyrany.

    The problem is the leftwing idots that teach in many of the schools today do not want the young to know where we came from and how smart the old white guys were that started this country, instead it is to easy to sit and complain that suv's are destroying the eco system or that the framers of the constitution were old idots. This from the same people who brought you hate ashburry st. and woodstock, these wont be remembered in 100 years, but the founding fathers will be looked on with awe, for many many hundreds of years. the people who want your guns also blame the usa for droping the bomb on the jap's in ww2, puting jap-amer. in prison in the usa when we were attacked, and think that all the indians or indiginous peoples before europeans arrived sat around and made symors and sang coumbya, all I can say is bull crap, ted kennedys car has killed more people than my any one of my guns.

    The liberal eliete also can hire their own uzi toting body guards where the single mom can call and get a pizza quicker than a cop. also not many people know this but the police have no obligation to come to your aid, you cant sue the cops for not comming in a certian time to help you. so if there happens to be a freash batch of dougnuts at krispy kream, you are S>O>O>L, Thanks but I have a taurus 45 millinum next to my bed and use a firestorm 380 auto to take on trips. not a fail safe but when the boogie man comes knocking I feel lots better than the liberal with his cel phone.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit