Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)

2. Yes, and THAT is the purpose of liability suits.

Reply to randys1 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:50 AM

Jul 2015

To change the behavior of a manufacturer. If Glock had to pay damages in $ Millions for Glock Leg Syndrome you can bet yer sweet ass that they'd add a mechanical safety. And so would every other gun maker like Keltek.

Funny, the job description of the US military is to tear things up and kill people and yet every small arms spec let for bid requires a mechanical safety but any yahoo with no training and no experience can buy a Glock or Keltek without one. Go figure . . .

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Groups sue Chicago suburbs for more gun control [View all] flamin lib Jul 2015 OP

As we know the comparison to cars is DUMB, cars are not built for the purpose of KILLING randys1 Jul 2015 #1

Yes, and THAT is the purpose of liability suits. flamin lib Jul 2015 #2

The whole gun issues resolves itself if we do two things, enforce the 2nd as written randys1 Jul 2015 #3