You're not obliged under any circumstances to follow manufacturers warnings or instructions. They are liability limiting instructions (they are for the manufacturers safety against being sued).

Firing pin safety blocks and other "don't sue me" "safety" features are often disabled in competition guns. When something safely fails and nobody is in danger then no negligence has occurred. If you don't get it fixed after the failure then you're negligent at that point.

You don't know if it was a (preventative) maintenance issue. Faulty parts aren't a preventative maintenance issue in this sort of item (since you can't identify a fault until something like this happens - that's when you know it's faulty).

Do you shoot much?

Because he ignored the manufacturers warnings/instructions AND disabled a safety feature, I can certainly say he was negligent. I can't be certain that negligence was the cause of the discharge, but I can be almost certain.
As to the 'it worked for 1000 rounds' argument...maintenance is 100% the owners responsibility.

No, nobody knows if it was negligence or not. He put an aftermarket part in (in good faith). It worked 1000 rounds before an issue manifested itself. As before, you can't prove that it was a fault on his behalf (unlikely if the gun worked for 1000 rounds before having hammer follow), or if the part was faulty (which can manifest at a random time), or if something else entirely caused it.

It was negligent for him to modify his gun as he did it, clearly, since it caused an unintended discharge. Because he followed proper firearm safety at the range, no one was hurt.
Accidents usually happen because of negligence.

Wrong and wrong.

There is such a thing as an accidental discharge. It is labelled as such on purpose.

You could term the same thing negligence in some situations (if an accidental discharge happened in a manner that could reasonably be foreseen and people were in danger from it). After seeing hundreds of thousands of rounds go down range I have never seen this happen with my own eyes. I have seen ADs.

This was equipment malfunction. It was probably hammer follow. The fact that he installed aftermarket parts himself is of no consequence without proof that he did it incorrectly. The part could have been faulty. Something else in the firearm may have failed causing the AD. I've had hammer follow on my firearm after receiving it back from a very competent gunsmith.

This isn't even a real question. There is no such thing as an "accident" with a gun, it's either intentional or negligence.

Maybe the rest of you were unaware of the facts of this case until you watched some video but I researched this story in the 90's so this video by Adam didn't tell me anything new and Adasm didn't ruin anything for me. I simply disagree with the emotional bias people seem to bring to the case. In my opinion there is one issue. Was McDonald's negligent in serving coffee at 180F. The answer regardless of botched testimony is no. The proof is in the fact that virtually all major vendors of coffee from Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts serve their coffee at that temperature to this day. The difference now is that they are more careful about warnings and labels to let their customers know that, you know, their coffee is hot.

They could have made a case that the cup was too fragile but that wasn't the problem. The woman even made a point of saying that she opened the cup away from herself to avoid spilling but spilled it anyways which to me indicates that she was aware of the risk.

Were the woman's injuries horrible. Yes. Was McDonald's response and testimony incredibly douchy? Yes. Does that in and of itself make them liable. No

And @enoch thanks for the link to the video I watched 3 years ago. You'll notice I didn't upvote that one either. You could have linked me to the documentary "Hot Coffee" that I watched 5 years ago. Here's a new one for you but maybe you've seen it.
*related http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-About-the-Infamous-McDonalds-Hot-Coffee-Incident

Also, I may not be as much of a bleeding heart as you but no, not a sociopath.

yeah..i held the misconception for years until i actually was shown the full story...

and it was a fucking horror show.just the pics alone of that poor womans groin and the burn damage../cringes
if you did not have a compassionate reaction or an empathetic response.

you are a sociopath.

not to mention mcdonalds response.which was so drenched in inhuman corporate speak,that it just left me cold,and dead inside...or maybe that was just the mcdonalds representative which basically admitted that the company was playing the ratios.they KNEW how hot the coffee was,because they set the standard.

they just viewed the small percentage of customers that DID burn themselves as acceptable losses,and they used a tried and true tactic of ignoring the complaints,which usually led to people giving up.

so the jurors damage was less about the actual burns,but more about mcdonalds knowing how hot the coffee was,because they set the temperature,and the negligence on how they responded.

so while mcdonalds did settle without actual admission of guilt,they lowered the temperature by 20 degrees.

@nanrod you should check out the video here on the sift regarding this lawsuit.i am sure you will change your attitude.

hold on..lemme go find it for ya.

@bobknight33 --

I agree with @Sagemind that it was not technically a dupe, but pretty close. I was one of the upvotes on your other one.

I think there are 3 reasons why this submission got more votes. In order of importance:

1) This one was timely. The fact that yours was posted 2 weeks ago makes Moore's impressively accurate prediction all the more evident, but the polling, media, and "experts" were telling people it was going to be a landslide for Hillary. Right up until later on election night when it started looking like Florida could flip. Anyway, people didn't want to hear it then, but they are rightly impressed now that his "crackpot" prediction panned out so perfectly.

2) Being video helps it capture the context of what Moore was actually saying a little bit better than yours did. As audio only in yours, I was struggling to reconcile what I was hearing with Moore's political views. This makes it more clear that he is speaking from the perspective of those disenchanted voters, not his own personal opinion. Not as important as #1 up there, but I think this is a legitimate item that at least in part explains the vote disparity in the two submissions.

3) The Sift as a site/community trends more to the left than the US in general, and there's a lot of ire directed at you, personally, for being one of the few vocal people on the other side here. I think it is fantastic that you're here, keeping the conversation from being largely/completely one-sided.

...But, being that voice means that you're going to get some downvotes and have some of your worthy submissions not get as much attention as if they were sifted by anyone else. I'm sure that accounts for a non-negligible portion of the current 5:43 upvote ratio between the two sifts, which may be unfortunate but perhaps isn't surprising?

So you are appalled at what ISIS are doing, but you still see the US army as the worst people in the world? This is why I'm agreeing with that quotation.

As much as US collateral damage could be lessened, they are hardly the worst people in the world. Especially as individuals - when a soldier goes home at the end of their tour, they're just regular a regular person. You cannot say the same thing for a member of a terrorist organisation where the practices listed above are considered not only normal, but law.

There is a really big difference between accidental, or even negligently causing civilian deaths vs. a doctrine to kill civilians (especially when they are your own civilians) - that's another thing entirely no?

Like I said in my previous comment, the bombing is not even anywhere near as indiscriminate as the left media would make it seem.

I hope that beaver is ready to be slapped with a huge negligence lawsuit.

I found an update on the youtube page.

Update: A lot of people have asked about her now. I never thought it would get so much interest. This video is a chronicle of our time together, which I finished making a while ago. Subsequent to making the video, I had to travel a lot, and struggled with keeping her where I was living. A saviour stepped in and helped look after Pegs while I tried to make a plan and she moved back and forth, which was disruptive for her. After months of no solution, it was obvious that her new set up with incredible love, a bigger garden and a new best friend in Luna, another great dane was more than I could offer. I am lucky that I get to visit and take her for short periods, and maybe that's why in my heart she's still with me. It’s always difficult. If the dog is happier, do you forsake your happiness? I think yes. If a dog is negligently bred, should it be killed to prevent more negligent breeding? I think no. Who's to say. In the end we try our best and our pets teach us lessons about love, humility and non-judgment.

And here is the problem in discussions like this. How we define words like rarity, moderation and negligible. The problem i see with this discussion is it seems like its more about winning than understanding. I think we can all agree on whats generaly healthy.

@transmorpher the issue i have is that you have shown yourself to be anti animal product NOT for health reasons necessarily although you are touting that, but for moral reasons. Its hard to buy into your sincerity regarding health when you feel consuming animal products is morally problematic.

And i believe that basing your diet on being plant based (fruits,veg,beans,nuts, very limited processed foods and animal products if any) is by far the best way to go for general health.

This is just my belief based on what ive read and my personal experience that left me in awe of how a healthy diet could make such a difference in my life physically and mentally. You think you know whats up, but then you realize you had no idea after you actually do it. This is my experience with diet.

I wouldn't consider once a week as moderation. I'd consider that rarely.

I also don't admit that there's no risk. There's a negligible risk, which is different.