I think that many people would agree that triggers and modern reloading data are designed to be "lawyer proof"

However this would also suggest that many gun owners are in fact part of the general attitute of "I should be protected, even from myself"

Mike

Some times it is not the gun owner who sues but some family member pushed by the anti gun crowd. I am a firm beliver in being resonsable for your own actions. If you tell the buyer it as a hair trigger buyers responsable. If you make a gun that is bad manufacture responsable. Then we have to get into whats a bad gun??? Thats the million dollar ?????.

I think that all it really suggests is that manufacturers and suppliers are scared of Liability (with a capital L, direct or vicarious). In this day and age it only takes one wingnut and a sympathetic judge to put you out of business or in jail, and that has resulted in severe cases of CYA (cover your a55) Syndrome.

I don't think it is indicative of the general attitude of hunters and gun owners, however. I am sure there are a few, but I feel the vast majority are still of the mind that people should act intelligently and take responsibility for their own stupid mistakes. Maybe I am an optimist though?

Canuck

[This message has been edited by Canuck (edited 01-01-2002).]

The point of tort law is simple. You have to be responsible, and reasonable, in your advertizing of your product, and advising the buyer what it can do, and what it can't do.

It's a very simple concept. Be honest and upfront about what you are building, state it clearly, and your duty to provide a safe product, and to inform the buyer, is done, if the product is safe for it's intended purpose.

If I remember correctly, in products it's called the implied warranty of suitability for the job intended. In other words, if you are IBM and you put out a POS hard drive, like the 75 GXP, and 40 % of them fail, you have breached your duty, since the implied product warranty is that it will perform reasonably, like other drives in the same category would.

If you have a gun design, where the trigger machine guns(some of us don't think that's a design flaw, but, that's another discussion),
you've breached that implied warranty.

I think reloading data books are actually on the safe side by nature. Reloading could be termed a naturally hazardous activity, and
due care should be exercized in developing loads, since you are working with explosives.

I think, and the reloading manuals generally do, advise the loader of all possible problems that might occur from misuse of the information they provide, and, they provide a manageable approach to developing loads, as well.

I think they do an effective job of transferring the liability on to the reloader.

As for triggers, I don't see why much more then a verbal warning, and something in writing, that the trigger is a match trigger, and easy to set off, is required.

It's the gun user that is not informed that is the problem.

One quick reloading story. I hate 9mm, but my boss used it for his sig sauer. I reloaded some ammo for him, using the maximum advised load for 9mm in the reloading book, at the time. He took it out to the range, and came back, gave me the gun, and the ammo, and told me to go shoot it.
Turns out the max load in this manual wouldn't even cycle the sig sauer...

I went to heavier bullets, and that solved the problem, since I wasn't jazzed about adding pressure, by upping the powder charge.

Thank God Saeed isn't in the US. All those guys shooting the 577 TREX might be sueing him, since they have no idea what they are getting into when they shoot the gun.

Of course, they have to have actual damage from the affair, and other then being embarassed, I don't see any.
gs

Socrates. I agree that if the manufacturor of a product sez to not do something, and you do it anyway, then it's your fault. But, and this is an actual case, what if you make a single action revovler, inform the new owner that you DO NOT have a round under the hammer, as dropping the gun or having it fall from the holster, or something striking the hammer will fire the gun. Yet, the owner ignores this warning, has the gun fall from the holster, discharging the gun and causes said owner to lose his leg. Said owner admits, in open court that he read the instructions comcerning leaving the chamber empty, yet, again by his own admission sez he ignored the warning. The jury awarded him $15 million. Now you know why Ruger developed his transfer bar system, and why he would like to have all old model Rugers converted to the new system. All I can say is it is too damned bad I wasn't on that jury. I sure would have done my best to stop that ridiculous judgement. But then again, under our present liability horse manure, we are no longer responsible for our own actions. It's the other guys fault. Right? Yeah, sure!
Paul B.

Its the #@!!&*^#@ democrats. They are always looking for something for nothing. And no one is responsible for their own actions. And excuse me, I don't want to hear a lot of crap about the democratic party. I was raised a democrat and the democrats of my youth and young manhood weren't anything like these sorry freeloading whinners walking around now. Would anyone like to compare Truman to that sleazy piece of organic fertilizer that just left the White House?