Lightened trigger on CCW a legal liability? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Walt · 08-30-2010, 10:38 AM

Anyone who has spent a little time hanging out at their local range, gun shop or online forums has probably run into some all-knowing “expert” warning of the legal dangers of customizing their concealed-carry weapon. For those of you who have not been blessed by such sage, unsolicited advice, the story goes like this:

"You have to be an idiot to lighten or smooth up your handgun’s trigger pull. Should you ever have to (justifiably) shoot a bad guy, you will get your ass handed to you in civil court. The bad guy’s lawyer will inevitably argue that your customized weapon was inherently unsafe, customizing your weapon shows that you are hell bent on shooting someone, etc.”

I’m a Glock guy and so I spend a bit of time browsing the Glock-centric forums. The general consensus seems to be that replacing the factory 5-8 lbs trigger connector with a 3.5 (really around 4 lbs and change) connector will somehow turn your handgun in to a legal liability. I’m calling bullshit on this one. I’ve heard stories from a guy that knows a guy whose sister used to date a guy who worked with another guy who got his ass sued…..but I, myself, have never seen a specific instance of a CCW holder – involved in a justifiable shooting – get bent over in court because of a reasonably lightened trigger.

Can anyone cite specific cases where a gun owner got sued?

Can anyone make a reasonable case as to why I should not lighten my carry gun’s trigger pull to 4lbs?

The_Jazz · 08-30-2010, 10:45 AM

Walt,

It all has to do with what a civil (not criminal) court thinks is "reasonable". If you're taking a 5 lb to a 4 lb, that's a 20% reduction and would be hard to classify as "unreasonable" in my mind. But if you're taking an 8 lb to a 4 lb, that half. And that might be unreasonable.

There's a fine line out there, and it's up to you to find it. Unfortunately, it's also a moveable line, so what's ok with one jury might not be with another. Remember that it's not "reasonable doubt" in civil court, it's a majority decision. You have to do what most people would do. The good news is that you'd most likely be able to introduce into evidence what the bad guy was doing prior to you lighting him up.

I'm drawing the line between civil and criminal since unless you're being purposefully unreasonable, I can't imagine any DA filing any sort of serious charge against a shooter for defending themselves or someone else.

As far as gun owners getting sued, I don't have that information, although I do know that Kel-Tec and Armalite were both sued unsuccessfully for light pulls. There were some significant defense costs in both cases though.

Plan9 · 08-30-2010, 11:19 AM

Reasonable, Jazz? Really? People that know nothing absolutely about firearms get to tell me what is reasonable?

If I kill a person by hitting them with a Ferrari 458 versus a Ford Econoline van how is it any friggin' different?

...

I smell the bullshit, too.

The factory trigger on a Glock 34 is roughly 3.8 pounds. To suggest that reducing the trigger on the G19 is dangerous is silly.

And if I recall correctly Glock itself used to advertise that the 34/35 have 3.5 pound triggers (even though they don't).

What about all the 1911s out there with cough-on-it move-a-millimeter single action triggers? How come those are popular?

This all gets me thinking about how nice the trigger is on my current AR. And how shitty the trigger was on my gov't issue.

I mean, if I shoot someone with my current AR and they say it was "manufactured to kill" what does that say about my old M4?

Wait... *snaps out of bullshit-induced doubt-coma*

Are these the same people that suggest you should carry FMJ/LRN/CCI Snake Shot instead of JHP?

Or the people that suggest you're only allowed to wound because "murder is murder?"

Apparently you can get fucked with a legal pitchfork dildo regardless in this country.

I say shoot the bastard and get judged by idiots over getting wounded / killed.

...

I believe Armalite and Kel-Tec were sued because their trigger pulls supposedly resulted in accidental deaths.

I'm going to pull my lazy card and suggest that the whole suit is complete yuppie hogwash. "X made me do it!"

I don't care how light or heavy a trigger is, if I'm deliberately pulling it and get a bang then I have the intention to kill.

The Old and Holy rules of gun use already dictate: keep your finger off the trigger, don't point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

...

All of this bullshit is somebody blaming an inanimate object for their poor snap judgment.

We're judged by our idiot peers. They see every gun as a Uzi or an AK47.

They see scoped hunting rifles as sniper rifles and your Glock is a "Gangsta Cop Killer."

Even at a relatively open-minded and educated forum like TFP I've seen people say,

"You know what handguns are for? Killing people."

No shit, Sherlock. So are cigarettes and Firestone tires.

...

Huh. I'm starting to see why some guys think I'm a retard for even keeping less lethal rounds on one of my home defense guns.

I see the utility in having different types of ammo. They just see how it'll work out in court. I'm fucking up their juju.

...

Anyway... I can't wait to change my G19 trigger to one similar on my G34. I want a slightly lighter pull and I can't stand the G19 serrations.

KirStang · 08-30-2010, 02:03 PM

Justified self defense shooting, I doubt you'll have many problems with the weight of your trigger. What theory will they sue under, tort battery? Intentional infliction of distress? I doubt some idiot waving a baseball bat around will get much sympathy in court. (Unless you're in Baltimore and the plaintiff looks like the jury).

On the other hand ND resulting in someone getting hurt, unjustified SD shoot, etc, you'll be in deep poo poo.

Plan9 · 08-30-2010, 02:06 PM

I love your Baltimore jokes.

...

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the type/state of the gun. At least it shouldn't.

It shouldn't matter if I use a Glock 9x19 or a Widley .45 Win Mag.

...

How does this shit really play out in court anyway?

"Well, sir... is it true that you own a .38 special revolver?"

"I do."

"Well, sir... could you tell the court why you used a 12 gauge shotgun instead of the .38 revolver?"

"I wanted to stop the threat. The shotgun was the best tool for the job."

"Well, sir... I think you used the 12 gauge because it's designed to kill people!"

"No, I was att..."

"You used the 12 gauge because it is designed to cause immense pain and suffering!"

...

How do you win against that kind of stupidity?

The_Dunedan · 08-30-2010, 02:21 PM

The problem is that, while suits like this are rare, they do happen and they are ruinously expensive to defend against. Being a -civil- as opposed to -criminal- case, all the Plaintiff has to do is show the Judge and Jury (any percentage of which may be anti-gun, anti-self-defense, ignorant or simply stupid) that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that what the Plaintiff alleges happened. This means that the chance of losing is -much- higher, and consequently demands a much greater level of "firepower" to defeat.

Therefore, if the Plaintiff alleges that Walt is a psychopath who willingly caused the wrongful death of their relative (or the wrongful injury of their own Persons), and that Walt owes them money because of this, all they have to do is convince most of the Jury (or the Judge) through the use of "evidence" such as weapon type, ammo type or calibre, etc. If you happen to have a Judge or Jury filled with Brady Campaign bullshit (or the Plaintiff brings in the Brady Bunch to give "expert testimony" and the J/J buy it) this can be -very- damaging.

However, it's very rare for such a suit to go the Plaintiff's way. The -big- problem is the cost of defending onesself, which can be astronomical. This is made worse by a number of factors:
1: Civil lawyers frequently -initiate- suits based on a "You don't win, you don't owe us anything" contract. The lawyer hired by the Defense -is- getting paid, no matter what happens, unless you find one nice enough to go Pro Bono on you. If -they- lose, they lose nothing. If -you- lose, you lose everything...and even if you win, you -still- owe some asshole $300/hr for all that work. Adds up fast.
2: The VPC, the Brady Bunch, and other equally noisome groups frequently pay the legal fees of such lawsuits, especially if the gun's manufacturer is -also- being sued. Nobody, especially not the fabulously rich yet somehow equally useless and worthless NRA, is gonna cover a gunowner's ass.

What this adds up to is a punitive lawsuit. Even if the Plaintiffs lose, they may not actually be losing anything, while the shooter/gunowner has lost their home and life's savings defending themself. And this, frankly, is -exactly- what the Plaintiffs are usually hoping for.

Plan9 · 08-30-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Nobody, especially not the fabulously rich yet somehow equally useless and worthless NRA, is gonna cover a gunowner's ass.

Don't let that get out. You'll break some hillbilly hearts.

...

If I ever shoot somebody, I'll have KirStang as my attorney. I can pay him in weapons and accessories.

KirStang · 08-30-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Don't let that get out. You'll break some hillbilly hearts.

...

If I ever shoot somebody, I'll have KirStang as my attorney. I can pay him in weapons and accessories.

I'm not even barred right now, so don't hire me. I'll get you in trouble.

However, I'm still pissed about that case in Arizona where the 10mm pistol made one juror think the defendant was a blood thirsty fool. The defense attorney never mentioned that 10mm was a great anti-bear round and was used by the FBI.

The_Jazz · 08-30-2010, 06:17 PM

9er, I've made a whole lot of money off the idea that 12 (or sometimes 16) folks decide what's reasonable and what's not. You know what's not? Apparently having your semi-truck at a dead stop at a light and have some drunks rear-end you, killing 2 and leaving one as a quadripligic. What did the truck driver do wrong? Nothing. Who pays? The truck driver (or actually, his insurance company).

Realistically, plantiff attorneys look for deep pockets. If you don't have any, or don't have a lot of insurance, you're not worth their time. On the other hand, if you do, you're going to have to prove to someone that knows nothing about guns what is or isn't reasonable.

Sorry to bring the Real World Rain on your parade, but that's just the way America works.

Plan9 · 08-30-2010, 06:21 PM

Sheah. I was being sarcastic. I was groomed for those years in college to be a law enforcement officer. You can't get any more janitorial than that.

...

You're not really selling yourself to me, Jazz. I mean... I want to like you, but I just can't bring myself to see beyond your occupation.

Hell, your occupation makes mine look like a professional boo-boo kisser or tenured deliverer of cupcakes to tea parties.

Walt · 08-31-2010, 07:46 AM

I appreciate the info, fellas.

Being a broke-ass colllege kid, most people probably have more money floating around beneath their couch cushions than I do in my savings account so I don't see anyone going after me for my money. Still, hypothetically, lets say the aforementioned scenario happens to me and I get hauled in to court.

Would being able to demonstrate the following make for a solid defense?

1) I have received X amount of formal firearms training.
2) I have spent X amount of years carrying a firearm in a professional capacity.
3) The United States government trusted my judgement enough to put me in a position of absolute authority, gave me a gun and turned me loose, alone and with literally no supervision.
4) I practice weekly and compete monthly in shooting events that are meant to simulate defensive shooting situations.
5) The aftermarket company that manufactures the 3.5 lbs connector advertises them as safe/acceptable for use in a defensive weapon.
6) The purpose of a lightened/cleaned up trigger is to improve accuracy; I am taking precautionary measures to ensure that I hit what I'm shooting at and not Johnny Bystander.
7) Glock's G34/35 "Tactical" pistols come with a factory installed 3.5 lbs connector for the purposes of "obtaining the greatest accuracy for target engagement".
8) The general consensus of defensive shooting instructors/experts and the manufacturers of high-end defensive pistols seems to be that a 3.5-5 lbs trigger pull weight is ideal.
9) My training, experience and shooting ability all exceed those of the average person (except, of course, for Strange Famous).

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Apparently having your semi-truck at a dead stop at a light and have some drunks rear-end you, killing 2 and leaving one as a quadripligic. What did the truck driver do wrong? Nothing. Who pays? The truck driver (or actually, his insurance company).

You have got to be shitting me.

Plan9 · 08-31-2010, 07:56 AM

But it's only as solid as the morons you put it on. Consider their attitudes and education on the topic your foundation.

You can't build a pyramid on top of an algae bed and not expect it to collapse. You can't wow anti-gunners with logic.

Based on some of the self-defense horror stories I've heard, you're better off getting a sex change than pursuing logic.

I mean... I wish I had the ability to turn myself into an attractive female of a racial minority. Great for shooting incidents.

KirStang · 08-31-2010, 12:39 PM

Edit: Nvm. Better not BS about things I'm not 100% about.

The_Jazz · 08-31-2010, 02:39 PM

Walt, I shit you not. And it makes a certain bizarre sense: someone's got to pay for the quadripligic's care. He can't work.

Shadowex3 · 08-31-2010, 03:15 PM

Being 2/3rds of the way to a BA in Legal Studies (also known as the "Internet Lawyer" degree) all I'm going to say on this is that Dunedan is basically spot on. You can bring a civil suit surprisingly easily and unlike a criminal case they can just screw you purely by the process of the suit itself even if they know they'll never win. On top of that it's going to be really easy to bullshit a judge and/or jury into thinking that lightened trigger means the gun behaves like an uzi in a cheap action-comedy film.

I hate to say it but a lot of lawsuits are more about who's better at making the deciding party hate the other side than anything else.

Martian · 08-31-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Walt, I shit you not. And it makes a certain bizarre sense: someone's got to pay for the quadripligic's care. He can't work.

I live in a country with publicly funded healthcare and that still doesn't make sense. Shouldn't his own insurance pay? Or barring that, his family? I mean, offloading the cost of care to the victim just because the victim had the bigger vehicle is just...bizarre.

On topic, in a perfect world if you could prove that killing or maiming another person in self defence is actually justified then the implement used to do the killing or maiming shouldn't be relevant. Guns are for killing, but that doesn't mean that a croquet mallet or oversized spork can't be used to kill a man, or that death by spork is somehow more humane or less bloodthirsty. The bottom line is whether or not the killing itself is justifiable, and everything else is a distraction.

That is in a perfect world. Sadly, our world is not it.

Is there some sort of liability insurance that one can carry for this sort of thing? It seems like it'd be a good investment for those who wish to carry around weapons for self defence.

therealcat · 09-02-2010, 06:33 PM

I refuse to go about unarmed or live in fear of lawyers.

The_Jazz · 09-03-2010, 04:19 AM

Martian, anyone who carries any personal liability insurance - be it renters or homeowners - has coverage, provided that it's not specifically excluded and that they're not doing anything illegal.

As for my example, look at it this way: the injured person wasn't driving. He was a passenger whose buddy made a bad decision. He didn't do anything wrong, and his care is going to cost millions of dollars. If the buddy's estate doesn't have anything to it, then who's going to pay for this guy's care? Should his brother and/or sister be bankrupted for the buddy's bad decision?

American juries rarely act unemotionally. It's part of the system, especially on the civil side. It's also much easier to take money from a corporation (or their insuror) than it is from an individual because, after all, it's a corporation, not a person.

Now, if the trigger in question is being used in the course of employment (private security, whatever it is that Plan9 does, etc.), then the employee should definitely check with the employer. But if this is a wanna-be hero out on his own, so long as he acting reasonably, there's not much concern.

08-30-2010, 10:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	Lightened trigger on CCW a legal liability? Anyone who has spent a little time hanging out at their local range, gun shop or online forums has probably run into some all-knowing “expert” warning of the legal dangers of customizing their concealed-carry weapon. For those of you who have not been blessed by such sage, unsolicited advice, the story goes like this: "You have to be an idiot to lighten or smooth up your handgun’s trigger pull. Should you ever have to (justifiably) shoot a bad guy, you will get your ass handed to you in civil court. The bad guy’s lawyer will inevitably argue that your customized weapon was inherently unsafe, customizing your weapon shows that you are hell bent on shooting someone, etc.” I’m a Glock guy and so I spend a bit of time browsing the Glock-centric forums. The general consensus seems to be that replacing the factory 5-8 lbs trigger connector with a 3.5 (really around 4 lbs and change) connector will somehow turn your handgun in to a legal liability. I’m calling bullshit on this one. I’ve heard stories from a guy that knows a guy whose sister used to date a guy who worked with another guy who got his ass sued…..but I, myself, have never seen a specific instance of a CCW holder – involved in a justifiable shooting – get bent over in court because of a reasonably lightened trigger. Can anyone cite specific cases where a gun owner got sued? Can anyone make a reasonable case as to why I should not lighten my carry gun’s trigger pull to 4lbs? __________________ Calmer than you are...

08-30-2010, 10:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Walt, It all has to do with what a civil (not criminal) court thinks is "reasonable". If you're taking a 5 lb to a 4 lb, that's a 20% reduction and would be hard to classify as "unreasonable" in my mind. But if you're taking an 8 lb to a 4 lb, that half. And that might be unreasonable. There's a fine line out there, and it's up to you to find it. Unfortunately, it's also a moveable line, so what's ok with one jury might not be with another. Remember that it's not "reasonable doubt" in civil court, it's a majority decision. You have to do what most people would do. The good news is that you'd most likely be able to introduce into evidence what the bad guy was doing prior to you lighting him up. I'm drawing the line between civil and criminal since unless you're being purposefully unreasonable, I can't imagine any DA filing any sort of serious charge against a shooter for defending themselves or someone else. As far as gun owners getting sued, I don't have that information, although I do know that Kel-Tec and Armalite were both sued unsuccessfully for light pulls. There were some significant defense costs in both cases though. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-30-2010, 11:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Reasonable, Jazz? Really? People that know nothing absolutely about firearms get to tell me what is reasonable? If I kill a person by hitting them with a Ferrari 458 versus a Ford Econoline van how is it any friggin' different? ... I smell the bullshit, too. The factory trigger on a Glock 34 is roughly 3.8 pounds. To suggest that reducing the trigger on the G19 is dangerous is silly. And if I recall correctly Glock itself used to advertise that the 34/35 have 3.5 pound triggers (even though they don't). What about all the 1911s out there with cough-on-it move-a-millimeter single action triggers? How come those are popular? This all gets me thinking about how nice the trigger is on my current AR. And how shitty the trigger was on my gov't issue. I mean, if I shoot someone with my current AR and they say it was "manufactured to kill" what does that say about my old M4? Wait... *snaps out of bullshit-induced doubt-coma* Are these the same people that suggest you should carry FMJ/LRN/CCI Snake Shot instead of JHP? Or the people that suggest you're only allowed to wound because "murder is murder?" Apparently you can get fucked with a legal pitchfork dildo regardless in this country. I say shoot the bastard and get judged by idiots over getting wounded / killed. ... I believe Armalite and Kel-Tec were sued because their trigger pulls supposedly resulted in accidental deaths. I'm going to pull my lazy card and suggest that the whole suit is complete yuppie hogwash. "X made me do it!" I don't care how light or heavy a trigger is, if I'm deliberately pulling it and get a bang then I have the intention to kill. The Old and Holy rules of gun use already dictate: keep your finger off the trigger, don't point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. ... All of this bullshit is somebody blaming an inanimate object for their poor snap judgment. We're judged by our idiot peers. They see every gun as a Uzi or an AK47. They see scoped hunting rifles as sniper rifles and your Glock is a "Gangsta Cop Killer." Even at a relatively open-minded and educated forum like TFP I've seen people say, "You know what handguns are for? Killing people." No shit, Sherlock. So are cigarettes and Firestone tires. ... Huh. I'm starting to see why some guys think I'm a retard for even keeping less lethal rounds on one of my home defense guns. I see the utility in having different types of ammo. They just see how it'll work out in court. I'm fucking up their juju. ... Anyway... I can't wait to change my G19 trigger to one similar on my G34. I want a slightly lighter pull and I can't stand the G19 serrations. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 08-30-2010 at 01:58 PM..

08-30-2010, 02:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I love your Baltimore jokes. ... Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the type/state of the gun. At least it shouldn't. It shouldn't matter if I use a Glock 9x19 or a Widley .45 Win Mag. ... How does this shit really play out in court anyway? "Well, sir... is it true that you own a .38 special revolver?" "I do." "Well, sir... could you tell the court why you used a 12 gauge shotgun instead of the .38 revolver?" "I wanted to stop the threat. The shotgun was the best tool for the job." "Well, sir... I think you used the 12 gauge because it's designed to kill people!" "No, I was att..." "You used the 12 gauge because it is designed to cause immense pain and suffering!" ... How do you win against that kind of stupidity? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 08-30-2010 at 02:11 PM..

08-30-2010, 06:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	9er, I've made a whole lot of money off the idea that 12 (or sometimes 16) folks decide what's reasonable and what's not. You know what's not? Apparently having your semi-truck at a dead stop at a light and have some drunks rear-end you, killing 2 and leaving one as a quadripligic. What did the truck driver do wrong? Nothing. Who pays? The truck driver (or actually, his insurance company). Realistically, plantiff attorneys look for deep pockets. If you don't have any, or don't have a lot of insurance, you're not worth their time. On the other hand, if you do, you're going to have to prove to someone that knows nothing about guns what is or isn't reasonable. Sorry to bring the Real World Rain on your parade, but that's just the way America works. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-30-2010, 02:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Justified self defense shooting, I doubt you'll have many problems with the weight of your trigger. What theory will they sue under, tort battery? Intentional infliction of distress? I doubt some idiot waving a baseball bat around will get much sympathy in court. (Unless you're in Baltimore and the plaintiff looks like the jury). On the other hand ND resulting in someone getting hurt, unjustified SD shoot, etc, you'll be in deep poo poo.

08-30-2010, 02:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The problem is that, while suits like this are rare, they do happen and they are ruinously expensive to defend against. Being a -civil- as opposed to -criminal- case, all the Plaintiff has to do is show the Judge and Jury (any percentage of which may be anti-gun, anti-self-defense, ignorant or simply stupid) that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that what the Plaintiff alleges happened. This means that the chance of losing is -much- higher, and consequently demands a much greater level of "firepower" to defeat. Therefore, if the Plaintiff alleges that Walt is a psychopath who willingly caused the wrongful death of their relative (or the wrongful injury of their own Persons), and that Walt owes them money because of this, all they have to do is convince most of the Jury (or the Judge) through the use of "evidence" such as weapon type, ammo type or calibre, etc. If you happen to have a Judge or Jury filled with Brady Campaign bullshit (or the Plaintiff brings in the Brady Bunch to give "expert testimony" and the J/J buy it) this can be -very- damaging. However, it's very rare for such a suit to go the Plaintiff's way. The -big- problem is the cost of defending onesself, which can be astronomical. This is made worse by a number of factors: 1: Civil lawyers frequently -initiate- suits based on a "You don't win, you don't owe us anything" contract. The lawyer hired by the Defense -is- getting paid, no matter what happens, unless you find one nice enough to go Pro Bono on you. If -they- lose, they lose nothing. If -you- lose, you lose everything...and even if you win, you -still- owe some asshole $300/hr for all that work. Adds up fast. 2: The VPC, the Brady Bunch, and other equally noisome groups frequently pay the legal fees of such lawsuits, especially if the gun's manufacturer is -also- being sued. Nobody, especially not the fabulously rich yet somehow equally useless and worthless NRA, is gonna cover a gunowner's ass. What this adds up to is a punitive lawsuit. Even if the Plaintiffs lose, they may not actually be losing anything, while the shooter/gunowner has lost their home and life's savings defending themself. And this, frankly, is -exactly- what the Plaintiffs are usually hoping for.

08-30-2010, 06:21 PM	#10 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Sheah. I was being sarcastic. I was groomed for those years in college to be a law enforcement officer. You can't get any more janitorial than that. ... You're not really selling yourself to me, Jazz. I mean... I want to like you, but I just can't bring myself to see beyond your occupation. Hell, your occupation makes mine look like a professional boo-boo kisser or tenured deliverer of cupcakes to tea parties. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 08-30-2010 at 06:27 PM..

08-31-2010, 07:56 AM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	But it's only as solid as the morons you put it on. Consider their attitudes and education on the topic your foundation. You can't build a pyramid on top of an algae bed and not expect it to collapse. You can't wow anti-gunners with logic. Based on some of the self-defense horror stories I've heard, you're better off getting a sex change than pursuing logic. I mean... I wish I had the ability to turn myself into an attractive female of a racial minority. Great for shooting incidents. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 08-31-2010 at 08:02 AM..

08-31-2010, 12:39 PM	#13 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Edit: Nvm. Better not BS about things I'm not 100% about. Last edited by KirStang; 08-31-2010 at 12:50 PM..

08-31-2010, 02:39 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Walt, I shit you not. And it makes a certain bizarre sense: someone's got to pay for the quadripligic's care. He can't work. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-02-2010, 06:33 PM	#17 (permalink)
therealcat Upright	I refuse to go about unarmed or live in fear of lawyers.

09-03-2010, 04:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Martian, anyone who carries any personal liability insurance - be it renters or homeowners - has coverage, provided that it's not specifically excluded and that they're not doing anything illegal. As for my example, look at it this way: the injured person wasn't driving. He was a passenger whose buddy made a bad decision. He didn't do anything wrong, and his care is going to cost millions of dollars. If the buddy's estate doesn't have anything to it, then who's going to pay for this guy's care? Should his brother and/or sister be bankrupted for the buddy's bad decision? American juries rarely act unemotionally. It's part of the system, especially on the civil side. It's also much easier to take money from a corporation (or their insuror) than it is from an individual because, after all, it's a corporation, not a person. Now, if the trigger in question is being used in the course of employment (private security, whatever it is that Plan9 does, etc.), then the employee should definitely check with the employer. But if this is a wanna-be hero out on his own, so long as he acting reasonably, there's not much concern. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo