I did not know that. Interesting fact.
Yeah sure do, maybe they should do a little more research and development in that arena, the people who make these locks. I understand it can’t be made full proof and economics must be considered but I think if a flower can defeat the security that’s pretty bad.
I cant argue with that but do note the best bike lock on the planet was defeated by a cheap pen. People are very inventive.
If it costs them money for research, development and manufacturing, and they are totally protected from liability, please explain why they would love to do so. At this point in time not doing so costs them nothing.
I agree completely and that is already the case for guns that’s what makes this conversation so weird for me. You should be able to sue the bar that overserved your underage sister causing her to kill someone. There is no reason for you to sue Jack daniels because she was drinking jack and coke all night. Just like with guns if the gun shop is selling to a prohibited individual then they lose this shop and can be liable for what that person does but you don’t need to sue Smith and Wesson.
How has that worked out in the past?
Legislation requiring the safety feature? If a specific misuse case could be described then legislation could be written to require a solution to that problem. Of course, then the debate would be if the misuse case was worth solving or if gun features were the best way to solve it.
For instances hunting related fatalities make up 12-15% of all firearms fatalities. Most of these are due to mistaking people for animals. There is little that could be done to a gun to keep someone from intentionally pulling the trigger while pointed at the thing they wanted to shoot. Better solutions would be better training for hunters (annual hunters safety requirements) or mandated amounts of orange as well as location requirements for all people during hunting season.
Pretty well to the best of my knowledge. At least in Colorado there haven’t been any illegal sales I’m aware of. Strawbuyers are a different problem but it is difficult for the feds to prove someone is a strawbuyer let alone a normal guy who owns a gun shop.
More sales. “Money”.
But I think you should be able to sue Smith and Wesson when you (or yours) are attacked with a gun of which there is no registration of a legal sale. The gun is the responsibility of the last registered owner who cannot show a bill of sale to a qualified party. If your gun gets stolen you better be able to show the destroyed safe to your insurance, because they just got liable for who/whatever is shot with that weapon.
I would require a simple, generic key. You stick it into the back of the gun, rotate it 90° to move the trigger dog into position, then seat it into the grip to push the dog block out out the way so that the trigger can fire the gun. The dog block is lightly sprung so that it pushes the key out if you take your hand off the grip. This could be done in less than a second, and you can keep your key on a bracelet so you do not have to search for it.
Cars are required to have seatbelts, many states require you to use them, and cars are not specifically designed to destroy. There is no reason guns cannot be required to be safe.
Most popular? Yes.
Best? The fact that the lock had an easily discovered and easily exploited design flaw means, by definition, it wasn’t the ‘’‘‘best’’'.
But, as has already been shown, that means a character in a movie will be needlessly killed when he doesn’t have instant access to his firearm.
I’m not sure I understand. Do you think gun manufacturers are selling out their back door to criminals? Sure, if they are, I can agree with that though a bunch of people will be going to jail and the government will have first dibs on their money and assets.
As for the gun being the property of the last registered owner, I get the emotion and I can generally agree with it. Most guns aren’t registered so there is no last registered owner. The transaction from the manufacturer to distributer to gun shop to original owner will show a paper trail.
I’m of pretty mixed feelings about the universal gun registry because I’ve seen too many anti gun people actually say they want to take away all guns. I also think that the registration lists could be used for a variety of non stated purposes including some criminal ones. I think the case has been made fairly well though that a lot of the proposed gun regulations fall apart without universal registration but in not sure if that means the gun regulation people need to use the same magic they are asking the gun safety people to use or if there are practical laws that will do good without registration.
What definition of the word safe are you using here? This certainly won’t prevent suicides and it won’t prevent intentional homicides or the target misidentification killings. Guns are all safe against drop fires and the current safeties prevent accidental trigger pulls. Basically what is left are the I thought my gun was empty when it wasn’t idiots. I don’t see how this helps them either.
The reality is if you took away the Congressional gun manufacturer liability shield it would still be pretty rare you could bring a successful lawsuit against gun manufacturers. It is probably the case that just the prospect of litigation could get them to change some of their behaviors, which could be a positive or not depending on the specifics.
Or there would be thousands of nuisance suits intent on driving up their legal costs and not winning.
I’ll be honest I have a lot of guns and none have been sold to me by gun dealers with an included trigger lock. Let’s be clear–when I hear the word trigger lock I’m thinking about a device extraneous to the gun, that you can attach to the gun, that when locked in place prevents operation of the gun, and that requires a key or some other similar form of secured access to remove. I am not talking about safeties which are common in most guns and are on most guns I own (but not my revolvers.)
I don’t shoot much these days, but the last two guns I bought (in the last 5 years) was a Remington 870 12 gauge and a fairly mainstream Ruger double action revolver. Neither came with anything I would identify as a trigger lock. The shotgun was sold in Ohio, the revolver in West Virginia. Both by local sporting goods stores (not gun stores, but not big chain stores.)
So keep in mind big corporations have legal teams, the incremental cost of them getting nonsense lawsuits dismissed pro forma is not very big. Literally every other company in the United States operates in that same environment, and the idea of lots of nuisance suits being filed isn’t a novel one. Courts tend to take dim views of attorneys and law practices that egregiously waste the courts time (and you can even end up sanctioned professionally), and the cost of sending a few staff attorneys who already are on payroll to handle ordinary legal business is unlikely to significantly increase costs to consumers.
Fair enough. I think a lot of them would go farther than immediate dismissal at least for the first decade or so as the courts work through the issues we’re talking about.