Canadian Court Rules Gun Maker Smith & Wesson Can Be Liable for 2018 Shooting
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Of course they did. Why wouldn’t they. It’s not about justice. It’s about an agenda. It’s about greed and money.
entropy
Member
Perhaps S&W's legal team should motion for a change of venue.
WestKentucky
Member
You forgot power. It’s always the intersection of money and power for a greedy person.
Carl N. Brown
Member
A stolen gun.
Do they think that smart gun tech cannot be disabled by someone willing to steal and kill?
How about the hundreds of millions of guns pre-smart gun tech and the MAC-10s made by extremists and drug runners from scratch with dumb gun tech?
Smith & Wesson's big error seems to be even trying smart gun tech. Cops don't trust it in life-or-death situations.
Do they think that smart gun tech cannot be disabled by someone willing to steal and kill?
How about the hundreds of millions of guns pre-smart gun tech and the MAC-10s made by extremists and drug runners from scratch with dumb gun tech?
Smith & Wesson's big error seems to be even trying smart gun tech. Cops don't trust it in life-or-death situations.
Commader47
member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2020
- Messages
- 48
These types of decisions by "judges" are always considered absurd until they are are carried through hand picked courts to a detrimental outcome.
How many other items should be "banned" "legislated" "controlled" etc simply because if stolen and misused could be used in a death?
How many other items should be "banned" "legislated" "controlled" etc simply because if stolen and misused could be used in a death?
grampster
Member
It's Canada. Why would anyone be surprised by this ruling?
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
WHAT smart gun technology? Let's not blame the criminal who stole the gun and committed a crime...........maybe they should allow folks to sue car makers for drunk driver accidents as there is technology to prevent someone from driving while drunk............
Many gun companies have flirted with smart gun technology. SW, Colt and Taurus tried. Several things - there was a real concern about police and civilians being disarmed as well as kids getting guns.
However, the electronic tech solutions never worked well such that police would use them. The only one that came close was the magnetic rings for revolvers. It did work pretty well according to testers but you had to wear the ring, it was a revolver, etc.
Gun companies also did some marketing research and found that there was an untapped market for handgun purchasers who would buy one - if it were a safe gun - assuming it worked.
Another problem was laws like NJ that would have mandated all guns be such. Many folks have no problem with a smart gun as a product option if it was not mandated. Now, if such existed - the risk of lawsuits is a problem if you didn't have one and something bad happened.
It might be similar to the lawsuits that occurred when non drop safe Ruger revolvers shot people. In one suit it was shown that the user knew of the problem could have corrected it but didn't. The jury found for Ruger but Ruger still paid him a bit to stop an appeal.
Similarly, the drop and bang problems of some Sigs and CZs (as in the recent death of a range officer near Rochester NY) may lead to suits.
Thus, what determines what makes a gun safe? It should survive a drop, it would seem. Should it be disabled if picked up by a nonauthorized user? Not being a lawyer, I supposed there is the technical liability issue and perhaps an antigun agenda using such a suit.
We will have to see how this plays out.
The drunk driving question is interesting as it has been proposed and AI cars that shut you down if you drive erratically aren't far off.
However, the electronic tech solutions never worked well such that police would use them. The only one that came close was the magnetic rings for revolvers. It did work pretty well according to testers but you had to wear the ring, it was a revolver, etc.
Gun companies also did some marketing research and found that there was an untapped market for handgun purchasers who would buy one - if it were a safe gun - assuming it worked.
Another problem was laws like NJ that would have mandated all guns be such. Many folks have no problem with a smart gun as a product option if it was not mandated. Now, if such existed - the risk of lawsuits is a problem if you didn't have one and something bad happened.
It might be similar to the lawsuits that occurred when non drop safe Ruger revolvers shot people. In one suit it was shown that the user knew of the problem could have corrected it but didn't. The jury found for Ruger but Ruger still paid him a bit to stop an appeal.
Similarly, the drop and bang problems of some Sigs and CZs (as in the recent death of a range officer near Rochester NY) may lead to suits.
Thus, what determines what makes a gun safe? It should survive a drop, it would seem. Should it be disabled if picked up by a nonauthorized user? Not being a lawyer, I supposed there is the technical liability issue and perhaps an antigun agenda using such a suit.
We will have to see how this plays out.
The drunk driving question is interesting as it has been proposed and AI cars that shut you down if you drive erratically aren't far off.
The issue was whether the class could be certified. The court held that it could. That is a far cry from determination of liability. The court found that there was a possibility of successful litigation. There would still be many issues such as proximate cause, state of the industry at time of manufacture, foreseeability, etc. Maybe the keylock will end up saving their bacon? No one knows at this point. The worst aspect of this finding is that it ups the ante for plaintiffs' war chest. Appeal would seem likely.
glove
Member
Next will be car manufacturers. Run some over in a stolen car sue the Company that built the car.
If someone wants to post the actual court desicion we can talk about that. News stories, while useful at alerting us to a happening, are next to useless when it comes to having a conversation based on the facts of the ruling.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
