Firearm Myths......

[IXLR8]

1911 45’s turn humans into a liquid mess.

 

[Axxe55]

I'll run it through my Glock, it'll be fine

Well....if ya lose any fingers, we are changing your nickname to "Stumpy"!!!!!!

 

[Sasquatch]

Well....if ya lose any fingers, we are changing your nickname to "Stumpy"!!!!!!

You been talking to my wife?

 

[Axxe55]

You been talking to my wife?

I haven't been, should we?

 

[Glenn B]

To my knowledge this has never come up in a trial, writers like Asyoob have proselytized this theory but it's just an opinion. If the shoot was justified it doesn't matter, if not then there are bigger problems.

It probably has come up by my guess. Ayoob, I believe, claims to know a lot and while he is knowledgeable, I doubt he knows everything he claims to know and knowing the outcome of every trial in which there was evidence to prove that a gun used to injure or kill someone was modified out of specs and made it more likely to shoot purposefully or unintentionally is like thinking he is omniscient.

If someone changes a trigger from original specs, that is not then within manufacturer's specs, that person is at risk. You would have modified it out of specs and if that modification was deemed to be what caused someone to be shot that should not have been shot - you would face the probable outcome of either being convicted criminally or at fault in a tort claim or both. Another example would be if someone removed the safety. Speaking of safeties, it is very similar to tje case of an actual manufacturer making a gun that was unsafe, they were at risk for any liability due to any loss because their firearm malfunctioned and hurt or killed someone. The prime example of that was the lawsuit against Remington - the case had evidence that was so overwhelming that Remington made a settlement; of course, because they settled to the satisfaction of the opposing attorney's, they included the stipulation they were not admitting fault or found at fault.

As for saying that if the shoot was not justified there are bigger problems, you would be foolish, if ever charged, to not consider the severity of being found guilty of the lessor charges. A good prosecutor, or one who is just out to get you, will charge you with everything possible to get that extra feather in their cap or to take someone they believe to be a bad guy off the streets. I know, I've dealt with hundreds of them in court and we were supposed to be on the same side - that of Justice - but they often only went for the prize, those feathers in their caps, to advance their careers. The more cases they won, the more likely they were either to gain fame or to gain an excellent paying job with a private law firm (or both) and they did not have to always win on the major charge(s), the lessor charges would, all too often, still get those feathers in their caps.

 

[Axxe55]

It probably has come up by my guess. Ayoob, I believe, claims to know a lot and while he is knowledgeable, I doubt he knows everything he claims to know and knowing the outcome of every trial in which there was evidence to prove that a gun used to injure or kill someone was modified out of specs and made it more likely to shoot purposefully or unintentionally is like thinking he is omniscient.

If someone changes a trigger from original specs, that is not then within manufacturer's specs, that person is at risk. You would have modified it out of specs and if that modification was deemed to be what caused someone to be shot that should not have been shot - you would face the probable outcome of either being convicted criminally or at fault in a tort claim or both. Another example would be if someone removed the safety. Speaking of safeties, it is very similar to tje case of an actual manufacturer making a gun that was unsafe, they were at risk for any liability due to any loss because their firearm malfunctioned and hurt or killed someone. The prime example of that was the lawsuit against Remington - the case had evidence that was so overwhelming that Remington made a settlement; of course, because they settled to the satisfaction of the opposing attorney's, they included the stipulation they were not admitting fault or found at fault.

As for saying that if the shoot was not justified there are bigger problems, you would be foolish, if ever charged, to not consider the severity of being found guilty of the lessor charges. A good prosecutor, or one who is just out to get you, will charge you with everything possible to get that extra feather in their cap or to take someone they believe to be a bad guy off the streets. I know, I've dealt with hundreds of them in court and we were supposed to be on the same side - that of Justice - but they often only went for the prize, those feathers in their caps, to advance their careers. The more cases they won, the more likely they were either to gain fame or to gain an excellent paying job with a private law firm (or both) and they did not have to always win on the major charge(s), the lessor charges would, all too often, still get those feathers in their caps.

Glenn, that's twice you have stated the same thing on this thread.

Show us court cases, lawsuits or legal opinions with the weight of law behind them that show what you are saying is true.

 

[zackmars]

1911 45’s turn humans into a liquid mess.

I mean yeah, some of those older folks just cant hold that stuff in anymore

 

[Glenn B]

Taurus makes awesome, reliable firearms….

Oh come on now - has anyone ever really said that!

 

[no2gates]

Wait, you mean you're not supposed to stuff your pistol cases so full of rifle powder that you're literally crushing the powder finer when you seat the projectile? I mean, the more fuller, the better, right?

Seems like a waste of space to leave that cartridge not filled with powder to touch the bottom of the bullet, right??
More is ALWAYS better !

 

[Glenn B]

In the criminal trial it would have no bearing.......it was a good shoot.....or it wasn't...

Possibly in a Civil trial.......all bets would be off...imho...

You are obviously overlooking criminally negligent homicide where the owner's modification could be the evidence needed to convict and proving it was a manufacturer error could provide the defense.

 

[easy rider]

Ghost guns and kits are made so felons can buy them legally.

Yes, I actually heard that.

 

[Glenn B]

It's not loaded.

 

[Glenn B]

Gun store clerks are mostly very knowledgeable about firearms.

 

[Glenn B]

A Clean gun is a happy gun (well it would be true if guns could be happy).

 

[Coop45]

AKs are not accurate

Also, this about AR-15s from the very horrible "person" Rep. Lee:

Aint she hot?

 

[benenglish]

Aint she hot?

No. I was officed in the same building as her for many years. She's a PITA to everyone around her.

 

[proximawave]

James Yeager is a firearms expert

 

[Psssniper]

That 50 BMG will rip yur arm off just going by!

 

[V-Tach]

You are obviously overlooking criminally negligent homicide where the owner's modification could be the evidence needed to convict and proving it was a manufacturer error could provide the defense.

Probably I'm dense.....a self defense claimed criminal trial is either justified shoot or not,. no?

If it wasn't a justified shoot...then it could come into play?

edit......Duh.....I get it.....

 

[BeatTheTunaUp]

That 50 BMG will rip yur arm off just going by!