Help Brandon Shut Down Bryco Arms

[MrBenchley]

A worthy cause...

"When he was seven years old, Brandon Maxfield was accidentally shot in the face, becoming a permanent quadriplegic, completely paralyzed below the neck. ...
A unanimous jury found Bryco Arms, the manufacturer of the pistol, responsible for its defective design and for Brandon's injuries and medical expenses. Rather than redesign the pistols, which experts agree have few if any legitimate purposes, and fairly compensate Brandon, Bryco Arms and the pistol's designer Bruce Jennings declared bankruptcy, and are now attempting to reorganize under a new name to continue making the same defective "Saturday Night Specials," placing more innocent children at risk.
Brandon is determined to stop them. On June 17th, the bankruptcy court will auction off Bryco Arms' gun-making equipment and other assets. Bryco Arms plans to sell them to its long-time plant manager, to simply continue the production of these defective pistols under a new name. Your donations will allow Brandon's Arms to purchase the equipment to ensure that it never again makes guns.
Bryco/Jennings cannot be allowed to cripple a seven year old boy, and get away with his long planned scheme to simply sidestep the judgment in bankruptcy and continue with business as usual.
Help Brandon protect children by making a tax-deductible donation now."

http://www.brandonsarms.org/

[TX-RAT]

1. Bryco/Jennings

Known for manufacturing cheap junk.

[MrBenchley]

2. And now trying to use this dodge

to avoid facing their legal liability.

Wonder if we'll hear any of the "pro gun democrats" who spout off about "personal responsibility" condemn the shitheel who did that?

[TexasMexican]

33. well...

you get what you pay for.

[T Town Jake]

44. Absolutely--total junk

Funny thing about that, when I went to my first CCW class to qualify for the license the guy next to me had bought one of those $70 .380's that they used to make. It misfed every round, of course, and finally the instructor brought out a rental gun from the range for him to use so we wouldn't be there all day and well into the night. Davis Arms wasn't much better, but I hear they're out of business now, too.

[OpSomBlood]

3. If the accident was due to a manufacturing defect, shut em down.

I've never had a problem with holding gun manufacturers liable for mechanical defects.

But I'd like to see the details of this case...the fact that this child was shot in the face doesn't make it very likely that the gun in question was being handled safely to begin with. Perhaps if the owner of the gun subscribed to the basic rules of gun safety (which Dianne Feinstein ignored in her AK-47 photo op), this would never have happened...defective gun or not.

[TX-RAT]

4. Just called our local gun shop.

He said he does not carry those anymore, Kept having to send then back for repairs.

[OpSomBlood]

5. In my experience, gun manufacturers are very good about parts and service.

If it is a factory defect, most gun manufacturers make it right free of charge, regardless of warranty.

You pay $50, more than likely it's a POS. And the maker of that POS had better be prepared to defend their defective product in court when it injures or kills someone due to that defect.

But again, I need to see more details about this case. This kid was shot in the face...this indicates to me that it was pointed at the kid's face loaded at some point. The person pointing the gun has to take some responsibility for the discharge.

[TX-RAT]

6. He just said they kept breaking

He didn't say they were going off accidentally. I agree theres more to this story.

[-..__...]

7. Others were found liable as well.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=80

Including: the distributer, the pawnshop, the parents and the babysitter.

And, before anyone goes flying off the handle claiming that the "manufacturers of firearms immunity bill' would have absolved Bryco of any liability; you're wrong.

S 1805 had a provision that would have exempted manufacturing defects from the bill.

[MrBenchley]

8. Gee, D-S, Bryco's avoiding its liability in an even scummier way

But thanks for reminding us that the scummy gun lobby was trying to engineer another sort of immunity for itself.

It's damn funny that the only people who EVER bring up "manufacturing defect" in connection with that crappy failed legislation are those who were pimping FOR it. Nobody pointing out what a corrupt piece of shit it was that I ever saw said boo about manufacturing defects.

[-..__...]

12. Damn lawyers.

"Gee, D-S, Bryco's avoiding its liability in an even scummier way"

Do you think that's an uncommon business practice? If not for the flawed bankruptcy laws, Bryco(or any other business that incurred a large lawsuit payment), would still be liable for paying up. It might not have been the right thing to do, but it was the smart thing to do.

Don't like the immunity bill? Blame the parasites and bottom feeders at Brady/VPC/MMM for filing and supporting bogus claims against the firearms industry at every twist and turn... "creating a nuisance" and "marketing towards criminals"... what a pantload.

The immunity bill was born out of the antis desperation, not the other way around.

[MrBenchley]

13. Scummy gun industry...

"Blame the parasites and bottom feeders at Brady/VPC/MMM for filing and supporting bogus claims"
Not even close to true. But hey, anything to defend the scummiest folks on earth. And now their idiotic and disgraceful immunity bill is dead as Heston's brain.

[-..__...]

16. Who's to blame?

"Not even close to true".

Name one judgment or guilty verdict against the firearms industry where "creating a public nuisance" or "marketing to criminals" was the main grievance claimed by the plaintiff(s)?...

[MrBenchley]

20. The scummy gun industry....

Now go piss and moan about these valid lawsuits to somebody who gives a good steaming crap.

[-..__...]

26. LOL!

You really should have someone take a look at that rash...
the chaffing and itching makes you irritable when you post.

[MrBenchley]

27. I haven't got any rash...

I just know a bunch of dishonest fuckwits when I see them...

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

9. how it happened

As I understand it, the child's babysitter was trying to unload the pistol. To do this, he had to take the gun off safety. While he was fumbling with it, he inadvertently allowed the barrel to point at Brandon, and when he bumped the trigger... That was that.

So, yes, the babysitter handled the gun ineptly and without due caution.


But, my god! Did you read the part about the manufacturer? That Bruce Jennings person sounds like a genuine psychopath. From http://www.brandonsarms.org/bryco.php :


Bryco Arms deliberately designed the Model 38 to require the user to disable the manual safety before unloading. Bryco Arms knew that unloading was an accident-prone time, and knew that the manual safety was the only guard against accidental firing. Previous models allowed unloading on "Safe," and were accompanied by a specific warning to unload only on "Safe." Bryco Arms changed this design, requiring the safety to be placed on "Fire" to unload, in order to hide a jamming problem with its new pistols. The written safety warning, which could not now be followed, was simply deleted.


(...)

Bruce Jennings and his second wife, Janice, started Jennings Firearms, Inc. in 1978 to manufacture and distribute a pistol called the J-22. After a domestic violence incident in 1985, Bruce and Janice Jennings divorced, Bruce Jennings became sole owner of Jennings Firearms, Inc., and his Federal Firearms License (FFL) was placed in jeopardy.

(...following this came a period of endless restructurings and other attempts to dodge all accountability...)

Corporate profits were immediately distributed, with Bruce Jennings "loaning" back working capital as a secured creditor, and the corporations carrying only minimal assets, no reserves, and as of April 1, 1994 (five days before Brandon's accident), no liability insurance. Bruce Jennings has bragged that if a judgment were ever obtained against him, he would simply file bankruptcy and reorganize again.

(emphasis mine in all passages)


Bruce Jennings has pulled this stuff for years, it seems. He puts considerable effort into scheming and arranging and basically doing everything necessary to keep churning out his wares, come hell or high water. You'd think that flooding the world with crap guns was some kind of divine calling for this man.


Mary

[OpSomBlood]

10. So Bryco should definitely be held liable for the defect.

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

The babysitter is partially responsible for the poor handling of the weapon, but it seems clear that the design of the Bryco pistol caused the discharge.

And the "immunity clause" rider had specific verbiage which excluded it from covering liability due to manufacturing defects. All it did was protect manufacturers from being sued by victims of those who used their product in an unlawful manner.

[FeebMaster]

11. How is having to take the safety off to unload the gun

a defect?

[Zynx]

17. It's exceedingly dangerous

Unloading a repeating firearm other than a revolver generally involves doing something with the action. The quickest way by far to empty a bolt action rifle, for example, is to cycle the rounds and have the bolt toss them out. Ditto most pump shotguns. In the case of an automatic pistol that has had a round chambered, this is especially dangerous, as while you can eject the magazine, you must work the slide to get the live round out of the chamber.

This is a generally dangerous facet of automatic pistols; lots of people have died from playing around with an auto that they cocked then "unloaded" by just ejecting the magazine. There still is one round in it that will fire perfectly if the hammer comes down.

Having to take the gun off "safe" to clear an automatic pistol is perhaps one of the worst designs I've ever heard of.

[OpSomBlood]

19. I agree and disagree.

I also think that the design is inherently flawed. You should be able to engage all safeties on a weapon while unloading.

That said, you never point a firearm at another person. Freak accidents like this happen, and it's better to have a hole in your wall than in your child's head.

I always point my guns toward by back lawn whenever I am cycling the action.

[FeebMaster]

21. I don't understand how it's more dangerous

with or without the safety on. Aren't you supposed to keep your finger off of the trigger until you're on target and ready to fire? Aren't you supposed to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction?

Having to take the safety off to work the slide is hardly a rare feature: The 1911 comes to mind. Glocks too, I guess, since they don't have a safety to engage in the first place. I'm sure there are others.

[OpSomBlood]

22. Do we know that the trigger was pulled in this case?

n/t

[FeebMaster]

25. I guess not.

But I think it's the simplest explanation. Do we know it wasn't pulled in this case?

[Zynx]

28. This POS probably didn't have a match grade trigger.

That goes off with a touch. It would take some effort to do it, and while this is an idiot babysitter who is unloading the gun with the barrel in the direction of a kid, I'd like to think that they knew better than to hold the gun by the trigger and squeeze.

Then again, probably not. *sighs at stupid people*

[TexasMexican]

35. from northernspy's post.

"As I understand it, the child's babysitter was trying to unload the pistol. To do this, he had to take the gun off safety. While he was fumbling with it, he inadvertently allowed the barrel to point at Brandon, and when he bumped the trigger... That was that."

I take "he bumped the trigger," as slang for "he accidently pulled the trigger, but didnt want to go to jail for accidently shooting a kid in the head, so he claimed it just went off."

[iverglas]

38. and of course

I take "he bumped the trigger," as slang for "he accidently pulled the trigger, but didnt want to go to jail for accidently shooting a kid in the head, so he claimed it just went off."

... from reading NorthernSpy's post, you are much more knowledgeable about the case than was the court that heard the evidence.

This ain't a newsoftheweird story, folks. This is a case that was tried in the way that all cases are tried. Evidence was adduced and findings of fact made. Witnesses were heard and their credibility assessed.

What kind of _________ thinks that s/he is better able to assess credibility and find facts, from reading a post on an internet board, than was (were) the duly appointed and properly instructed trier(s) of fact who heard the evidence in a trial in which the defendant had every opportunity to introduce its own evidence and call its own witnesses, and challenge the evidence and testimony presented by the adverse party?

I could hazard a guess ...

[Fescue4u]

52. Thats dangerous to.

"The quickest way by far to empty a bolt action rifle, for example, is to cycle the rounds and have the bolt toss them out. "

I had a gun "slamfire" doing that. Scared the daylights outa me, and everyone around, but I had the gun pointed in safe direction. The only damage was our nerves and eardrums.

[JayS]

56. When I was a kid my dad did this on purpose to show me...

...what can happen when getting that last round out. It certainly made an impression on me. Now that I am older I have a feeling that he pulled the trigger and I just did not see it...

[TexasMexican]

34. From reading that I would say the babysitter is mostly responsible.

aiming the weapon and someone and pulling the trigger is definately a sign that the babysitter was responsible.

I have no doubt the gun is a shoddy pos but no one would have been hurt if it was aimed in a safe direction.

Guns are always loaded.

[iverglas]

15. innocent until proved guilty ...

But liable once found liable by a court.

But I'd like to see the details of this case...the fact that this child was shot in the face doesn't make it very likely that the gun in question was being handled safely to begin with. Perhaps if the owner of the gun subscribed to the basic rules of gun safety (which Dianne Feinstein ignored in her AK-47 photo op), this would never have happened...defective gun or not.

You did read the bit about how this particular corporation was found liable by a court?

Presumably the corporation was clever enough to raise whatever defences to an allegation of negligence might have existed. I have no clue why you'd think that the details of the case weren't properly examined by that court, and all your questions answered.

Perhaps Dianne Feinstein shot the kid point-blank. I just think that the defendant in the case might have mentioned it ...

[MrBenchley]

18. It's wonderful to see

how far afield our "pro-gun democrats" will wander for a chance to slander an actual elected Democrat.

[OpSomBlood]

23. I guess being a Democrat gives her free rein to be an idiot.

Funny...the fact that she calls herself a "Democrat" means nothing to me. It's almost as silly as calling a president who runs massive, wasteful deficits a "conservative."

The origin of "Democrat" comes from "democracy"...or rule by the people with the absence of arbitrary class distinctions. Feinstein wishes to rule from a pulpit where she isn't required to adhere to the very laws she promotes.

That's not a Democrat. That's a hypocrite.

[MrBenchley]

24. that's our "pro gun democrats"

Ready to slander any elected Democrat anyones's ever heard of, post any right wing crap they can find, and pimp loudlty for GOP legislative priorities.

[Zynx]

29. Feinstein is an idiot on guns

She had/has no idea what she is talking about. I don't respect any politician who is talking clearly out of their ass to win votes and exploit the ignorance of the average American.

Feinstein is not immune from this.

[MrBenchley]

32. Too TOO funny....

"exploit the ignorance of the average American."
Meaning everyone who doesn't whack their weenie over gun porn....

"Feinstein is not immune"
Funny....right wing shitheads like Trent Lott or Tom DeLay seem to be utterly immune from even the mildest word of rebuke from our "pro-gun democrats."

[Liberal Classic]

14. Searched google news

These two are from the Associated Press:

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3403183/detail.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040610-0035-ca-defectivehandgun.html


Bryco filed for bankruptcy in Florida, where its founder Bruce Jennings lives. A series of bankruptcy petitions is pending, as is an appeal of the Alameda County verdict.

That jury determined the pistol was defective – to unload the weapon, a user must first unlock the trigger lock, a dangerous and flawed system, according to Ruggieri.


This article is from jointogether.org which is an issue advocacy group, not a news wire.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,571138,00.html



I'm no expert on bankruptcy law, but there are penalties for declaring bankruptcy in bad faith.

I'm not sure if BrandonArms qualifies for tax exempt status, however.

[TexasMexican]

31. Sounds like his problems was...

that he was shot in the face, not that the gun was defective.

He is lucky that it was a crappy low caliber gun, because if it were a real handgun he would probably be dead (although to some people that might be preferable to being completely paralyzed).

[RoeBear]

36. So how much did you donate...

...to buy the gun company?

[FeebMaster]

43. If they buy the company,

won't that make everyone who donated part of the corrupt gun industry?

[RoeBear]

37. How old is this article?

"They are designed to be concealed, which is illegal in most states."
http://www.brandonsarms.org/bryco.php

[iverglas]

39. hmm

"They are designed to be concealed, which is illegal in most states."

It most certainly is illegal in most states, UNLESS one has a permit for the purpose. No?

And gosh, if I may toss a bit of herring into the mix: wouldn't we like to think that all those responsible, well-trained holders of such permits aren't toting these bits of trash around in their trousers? I mean, in the interests of their own future fertility, if not for everyone else's safety.

One might then almost think that these things were designed to be concealed illegally, since it would appear to be so very unlikely that anyone legally concealing a weapon on his/her person would be doing it with one of these.

[OpSomBlood]

41. How do you determine the legality of concealment method?

n/t

[iverglas]

46. I dunno

How do you determine the legality of concealment method?

What colour is orange: true or false?

[OpSomBlood]

47. But...

One might then almost think that these things were designed to be concealed illegally, since it would appear to be so very unlikely that anyone legally concealing a weapon on his/her person would be doing it with one of these.

Concealed carry laws do not specify what carry methods are to be used, only that the weapon is concealed from view. If it weren't a miserably-designed cheap piece of crap, the size of this pistol would lend itself very well to legal concealment.

[iverglas]

50. gimme a break

Surely you are not pretending that when I said

One might then almost think that these things
were designed to be concealed illegally ...

... it was possible that I meant something OTHER THAN "designed to be concealed BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE LICENCES TO CARRY THEM CONCEALED".


If it weren't a miserably-designed cheap piece of crap, the size of this pistol would lend itself very well to legal concealment.

Yeah. And as I wuz saying, I just wouldn't be expecting someone who was properly licensed to carry a concealed firearm to be carrying such a "miserably-designed cheap piece of crap". Not from anything I've heard hereabouts.

So like I wuz saying: let's all do the math.

[FeebMaster]

42. Right.

"And gosh, if I may toss a bit of herring into the mix: wouldn't we like to think that all those responsible, well-trained holders of such permits aren't toting these bits of trash around in their trousers? I mean, in the interests of their own future fertility, if not for everyone else's safety.

One might then almost think that these things were designed to be concealed illegally, since it would appear to be so very unlikely that anyone legally concealing a weapon on his/her person would be doing it with one of these."

Unless, gee, maybe they can't afford better.

[iverglas]

45. "maybe they can't afford better"

Uh huh. And maybe some people can only afford cars that don't have brakes and headlights. Shall we then permit such cars be sold?

I'll bet that a lot of people could eat a lot better (in a manner of speaking) if we did away with all food-safety regulations, too. Food would still be more affordable.

Consumer protection legislation. A terrible thing.

Of course, my point wasn't addressed.

Persons licensed to carry concealed firearms apparently can afford the associated training expenses and licence fees. They are apparently informed about firearms safety. Would it not be unusual if a person with such training and knowledge, not to mention the concern for safety that is allegedly demonstrated by their very possession of such a licence, to want to tote around such an obviously unsafe product? Do we really imagine that this product was being marketed to people licensed to carry concealed firearms?

The firearm in question was designed to be concealed. It is a highly unlikely firearm of choice for someone who fits the profile we are constantly given of a person licensed for that purpose. Let's do the math, shall we?

[OpSomBlood]

48. Two sides.

I understand what you are getting at, but the fact remains that there is no way to determine if this gun was designed to be used by criminals.

It's a piece of junk, and no knowledgable gun enthusiast would ever own one. And I absolutely think that gun manufacturers should be held liable when mechanical malfunction of their product results in death or injury.

All that said, it's a machine. A poorly-designed one.

As someone else posted, it turned out that the manufacturer was not the only entity held liable in this case. The "defective" gun was also unsafely handled by the babysitter, which resulted in the barrel being pointed at the child when the discharge occurred.

[FeebMaster]

53. Guns? Cars?

What's that phrase we hear so often down here? Something to do with apples and oranges I think.

Uh huh. And maybe some people can only afford cars that don't have brakes and headlights. Shall we then permit such cars be sold?

We do permit those kinds of cars to be sold.

Consumer protection legislation. A terrible thing.

Only when it prevents the consumer it's supposed to be protecting from getting the product they want at a price they want to pay.

Personally, I'm all for poor people being able to defend themselves. It's a shame they can't all go out and buy a Sig pistol but I'm hardly going to argue for regulating the few guns they can afford out of their price range, no matter how crappy those guns might be.


Persons licensed to carry concealed firearms apparently can afford the associated training expenses and licence fees. They are apparently informed about firearms safety.

Funny you should mention training expenses and license fees. I don't support those either for the same reasons I don't want cheap guns regulated out of existence.


Would it not be unusual if a person with such training and knowledge, not to mention the concern for safety that is allegedly demonstrated by their very possession of such a licence, to want to tote around such an obviously unsafe product?

What does want have to do with it?


Do we really imagine that this product was being marketed to people licensed to carry concealed firearms?

I imagine this product was being marketed as a very, very cheap pistol.


The firearm in question was designed to be concealed.

So?

It is a highly unlikely firearm of choice for someone who fits the profile we are constantly given of a person licensed for that purpose.

Whatever profile that is. I don't support requiring someone who wants to carry a concealed weapon to get a license anyway.

Let's do the math, shall we?

Poor person + crappy, but affordable gun = armed poor person. Makes sense to me.

[iverglas]

58. defined yourself out of the discussion once again

What's that phrase we hear so often down here? Something to do with apples and oranges I think.

Yeah. And wouldn't that just be the point I made when I responded to "maybe they can't afford better" by saying "Of course, my point wasn't addressed"? Yup, it would.

"Maybe they can't afford better" HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the point I had made, which was that it was highly unlikely that persons with licences to carry concealed firearms, and who had taken the training and incurred the expense associated with such licences, would be buying and carrying these bits of trash.

And yet the bits of trash in question are designed to be concealed on one's person.

Will no one do the math?!?

We do permit those kinds of cars to be sold.

Yeah. I was going to write "for on-road use", but in the interests of brevity, and not actually believing that anyone would be so disingenuous as to claim that cars sold for off-road use had anything to do with the subject at hand, I didn't.

The instant you can provide me with a means of ensuring that no one uses, i.e. handles in any way, a trash firearm like this after buying it, that is as reliable as the means we have of ensuring that no one uses a car without brakes and headlights in the manner in which the cars I am actually talking about are used -- that would be by looking at them as they drive down the road -- you let me know.


But anyhow ...

Funny you should mention training expenses and license fees. I don't support those either for the same reasons I don't want cheap guns regulated out of existence.

... like I said, you just go ahead and keep defining yourself out of the discussion. No skin off my nose. And your opinion of training expenses and licence fees would be ... what would it be, again? Oh yeah, a great big smelly


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

'Cause what YOU think of training expenses and licence fees has precisely
0
to do with whether someone who has invested in training and licence is likely to buy a trash firearm like the one in question to tote around.

Y'all keep evading the question now, ya hear?

[FeebMaster]

63. Sniffle Sniffle.

'Cause what YOU think of training expenses and licence fees has precisely
0
to do with whether someone who has invested in training and licence is likely to buy a trash firearm like the one in question to tote around.

Y'all keep evading the question now, ya hear?


Here I'll answer your question. I doubt anyone who goes through the trouble of getting a concealed carry license would carry one of these pistols. They are probably quite popular among poor people who carry illegally. Some of them are probably even criminals aside from the carrying illegally.

I have no problem with poor people, or anyone, carrying illegally, though, since I don't really support the whole concealed carry permit process. Of course, unlike some people, I don't want to make carrying a weapon for self-defense, or firearms in general, a rich, well-connected man's game.



On Edit: Spelling

[RoeBear]

59. Then I suppose I could say that driving a car is illegal too...

...unless you have a driver's license.

But that would be a silly thing to say wouldn't it?

[iverglas]

61. what colour is orange ...

Then I suppose I could say that driving a car is illegal too...
...unless you have a driver's license.
But that would be a silly thing to say wouldn't it?

I give up. In what universe?

[RoeBear]

64. Well, for starters, in the one you inhabit...

...If I said that driving a car is illegal, that would be a pretty silly statement without adding any qualifiers, right?

[JayS]

40. I first heard about it a couple of years ago. n/t

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

49. Why does this organization have tax-exempt status?

They are raising funds to buy gun manufacturing equipment. How were they able to convince the IRS that this is a noble charitable cause?

[-..__...]

55. That's a good question?

Actually though, the site reads "has applied to the IRS for recognition as a tax-exempt organization". Doesn't say anything about tax exempt status being granted.

[OpSomBlood]

57. "Help Brandon protect children by making a tax-deductible donation now."

???

[Fescue4u]

51. Brycos are crappy guns and I would not own one.

But then again I can afford to buy close to any firearm I wish. Far be it for me to decide that poor people are not entitled to civil rights as well.

As for the "defect" of not being able to unload the weapon with the safety on, this is a rather common design.

One of the most famous pistols, the Government 1911 shares this design facet, as does many hunting and "assault" rifles.

One of the basic rules of firearm handling is not to point it at people. ESPECIALLY IF ITS LOADED. To point a loaded gun, safety on or not at a person you are not willing to kill is pure negligence.

I cannot imagine why a person would point a gun at a child for any reason, let alone in the process of unloading it.

I suppose one could hold Bryco liable for designing a handgun with the same design feature as hundreds of other models, although I disagree with that notion.

Regardless, even if Bryco IS guilty, the ultimate responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger.

[JayS]

54. There was a lot of funky stuff included in the earlier stories...

...that is left out in this one. There were questions about what the babysitter was doing with the gun in the first place and questions about his statement that an adult told him to go get the gun. I remember that the statements of the babysitter did not exactly pass the smell test. It sounded more like a sixteen year old screwing around without the benefit of common sense.

[iverglas]

60. and the damned thing is

It sounded more like a sixteen year old screwing around without the benefit of common sense.

It was just sooooo unforeseeable that this would ever happen, wasn't it?

Toddlers screw around with medicine bottles and cigarette lighters without the benefit of common sense. That's why we make medicine bottles and cigarette lighters toddler-proof.

Few things can actually be made idiot-proof. But things that have the potential to cause horrific harm if screwed around with by idiots -- when it is entirely to be expected that idiots will screw around with them -- are often required to be idiot-resistant at least.

I suppose there's a reason why this particular thing should be exempt from that general rule, or why its manufacturer should be exempt from liability for breaking it. (Which is it, by the way?)

Cain't think o' one myself, offhand.

As I continue to be quite unable to think of any reason that anyone would prefer his/her plainly uninformed opinion about facts to that of the trier of fact who made the findings of fact in question. Particularly since no one who appears to prefer his/her opinion has offered any reason whatsoever for preferring it to those findings.

But then, that there is a free country, and y'all are entirely free to have whatever uninformed and bizarre opinions you like, eh?

[JayS]

62. Who said the event was unforeseeable? I don't recall anyone...

...saying that. And yes, parents can be terribly irresponsible. Sometimes parents even leave their children unattended in motor vehicles with the engine running!

And since I have yet to see a law requiring the manufacturers of firearms to even provide a "safety" on their products I'll not blame them for not providing one, even if the reason for not doing so is seedy.

And since you appear to have no knowledge of the case outside of what you read from a site that has an understandable bias, I'll just have a chuckle over what you call bizarre.