If this story is to be believed, this might be the first time I agree with suing the gun folks. It sounds like they did not act responsibility and indeed hid the fact of the safety.
While I am a staunch advocate of the Right to Bare Arms, this young man seems to have a valid case and his moxy should be applauded.
Dave and I discussed this, and if the facts as presented are true, it sounds like a defective gun.
This is of course my point of view. If there is more on this subject I would love to know more. The link below takes you to his site.
Frankly I would be interested in a discussion of this article if anyone is interested. Companies like this give those who are honest a bad name and a platform to scare.
Well, except maybe Jennings.
I prefer long sleeves myself but, to each his own. :=)
1. Always treat a gun like it is loaded
2. Always point a gun in a safe direction
3. Never point a gun at a person
Yep - Sounds like the gun's fault...
You can't get a round out of the chamber of a 1911, which is one of the most popular handguns of all time, without taking the safety off.
No firearm can make an operator follow the two most basic rules of firearm safety:
Always point the muzzle in a safe direection.
Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
P.S. Some people shouldn't "bare" their arms in public.
WTF??? Can anyone identify for me any semiauto pistol which can be cleared while the "safety" is engaged? Jennings may have been crap pistols, but the baby sitter was clearly violating Rule 2, and probably Rule 3 as well.
Even an unsafe gun should be pointed in a safe direction when loading, unloading, cleaning, etc...
Note to ignorant reporter: that's not a flaw, it's a failure of the imbecile who pointed the gun at another human being while manipulating a firearm. Unless, of course, one considers the 1911 flawed since I can't retract the slide witht he thumb safety engaged.
This was a horrible law suit. Explain to me how it's the gun company's fault that someone was stupid enough to point a gun at someone while unloading it?
And as far as having to disengage the safety to unload, this is the case with a lot of semi-auto guns. Heck, the glock 19 I carry doesn't even have a safety (using the classical definition of safety here) and I wouldn't carry any other way. If I pull the trigger it fires. If I pull the trigger while trying to unload it fires. If I point it at someone while pulling the trigger while unloading it fires.
So, in closing if I'm dumb enough to 1) point the gun at someone 2) take the safety off 3) try unloading the gun while still pointing it at someone, and 4) somehow pull or hit the trigger firing a shot into them, I'm the one that should be sued for 51 million, not the gun manufacturer!
If that is true... can't argue with a Jury ruling that the manufacturers had a faulty product and liable for this persons injury.