You can bash the country or its economic environment if you want, but let's not forget that (to quote one of the above posters), that likelihood of getting sued goes up when you:
1. Kahr hired a doper with a criminal record who traded guns without serial numbers for dope.
2. At least one of those guns was used in a murder.
3. A four old kid found the murder gun.
4. Kahr had no security in place to prevent the theft of guns from its plant.
5. Kahr neglected to report guns missing from 15 or 16 shipments. In some cases entire shipments never reached their destination. Where are those guns now?
Yes, threats of lawsuits happen more frequently with successful companies because you always want to go after the "deep pockets", but let's not turn a blind eye to Kahr's (potential) actions here just because you like guns.
I love the statements in this thread about guns aren't dangerous, Kahr is only being picked on because of anti-gun sentiment, etc. Give me a break guys. Yes, firearms get a bad wrap from a lot of people, and yes, some politicians/organizations try to punish gun companies both directly and indirectly, but gun makers aren't infallible. If they mess up, they should be punished, and it doesn't matter how much we love the product.
And here, the dispute didn't even reach that point, because they (or rather their insurance provider) just paid a settlement fee to get the plaintiff here to go away. Heck, it was not even that high of a settlement fee at that, compared to what a team of litigators would cost them, not to mention the damages a jury could potentially hit them with if this case had gone to trial.