Some lawyers are going to be buying 2nd and 3rd cottages on Lake Muskoka once this is settled | GTAMotorcycle.com

Some lawyers are going to be buying 2nd and 3rd cottages on Lake Muskoka once this is settled

I am not a gun fan. I don't own one, I don't want one, I don't want to live in a place where one feels obligated to own one. I'm completely uninterested in them.

BUT.

This is a completely ridiculous lawsuit, and I hope it gets thrown out the moment it lands in a real courtroom.

I am not aware of any standard or law or convention or any other such thing, that would require gun manufacturers to use such a system. And just because the technology might exist in theory someplace in the world, perhaps obscurely in a research lab, in no way means that technology is ready for prime time and ought to be interpreted as mandatory.
 
My sympathies go out to the affected but who will be picking up the legal tab on this stretch? And what Brian P said.
 
Wingboy said:
Completely agree with Brian.I also like Chris Rock's idea of raising the price of bullets to $10,000 each.
Click to expand...

There was a minister in the USA that wanted to set up a shooting gallery so gang members could train for better aim and thus avoid killing innocent bystanders. Everyone has their own logic.
 
This case will not go very far but it will be a warning to gun manufacturers.

It can become a tactic of anti-gun lobby to tie these companies in litigation. Companies and investors hate litigation.

If there are enough cases, a judgement will go in favour of a plaintiff or a settlement will be made and that will be the end of that company doing business in Canada.
 
This angle has been tried before and failed.
IIRC someone went after Beretta years ago over an "accidental" shooting. Precedent has been set.
I predict it will fail again.
'Just lawyers looking for money. I'm surprised there aren't any going after Ryder Truck Rentals or the manufacturer of the truck used in the Yonge St. Van attack in April 2018...

If anyone, they should sue the entire family of the shooter as well as every Doctor the guy ever had contact with.
Then sue TPS for not preventing the shooting in the first place.
 
I know nothing about how the legalities in this type of case works...but I highly doubt this case will see the light of day. So unless each of the affected parties pay the lawyers up front, I don't see this going anywhere and don't see any payout to anyone.

But...logic fails at the best of times sometimes. So I guess we watch and see.
 
Interesting marketing for the anti-gun lobby. I could see S&W settling for $10,000,000 to make it go away and suppress the terms and avoid a precedent setting decision. Again, the lawyers win but nobody is helped.
 
Agree with brian.

This is happening in the states btw...silicon valley exec running for president(Andrew yang) is advocating precisely for biometric locks since they have so many guns they cant possibly legislate them properly.
 
So they are arguing that firearms should require biometric identification to fire? You might as well just ban them as that will make them better hammers than guns. That introduces batteries, interlocks and some type of sensor that has no hope.

Current fingerprint unlock requires carefully placing you finger in the right spot, normally multiple times before it works and is easily defeated.

What do they want? Retinal scanner and if it doesnt find a match, launch a 22 into the shooters face?
 
GreyGhost said:
Interesting marketing for the anti-gun lobby. I could see S&W settling for $10,000,000 to make it go away and suppress the terms and avoid a precedent setting decision. Again, the lawyers win but nobody is helped.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but I have a very strong suspicion that this farce was initiated by the lawyers filing the lawsuit hoping for this exact result.
 
It gets even dumber. One of the possible technologies cited is a wristband (presumably something like rfid). If you going to steal a gun, you sure as hell would steal the band.
 
How would this work, even hypothetically, and be even remotely circumvention-proof?

Guns as they are now are completely mechanical contraptions whose basic operation hasn't changed in decades if not centuries, and many of the gun models have been the same, with the same internal working parts, for decades - MANY decades. Somehow to make this work, you would have to introduce another mechanism that blocks trigger action unless activated. Disassemble gun ... remove blocking mechanism (which presumably has to end up with some type of motorized mechanism) ... re-assemble, possibly with slightly different bits and pieces (i.e. the same ones that have been around for decades), so that it works without the blocking mechanism. Or so that it works with the motorized mechanism permanently activated.

The only way to have a hope of having that concept work is to come up with a completely new gun model that has the safety/security gizmocontraption built in, and designed in a way so that no parts of any previous totally-mechanical gun are even remotely compatible or interchangeable, and discontinue all production and spare parts of all previous totally-mechanical gun models so that they eventually (after many decades!) become obsolete or worn out or otherwise out of circulation. To do it right, even the ammunition would have to be intentionally incompatible with the old ammunition for previous gun models discontinued, to encourage the old non-security-mechanism firearms to be taken out of service.

That is NOT happening, not even a remote possibility!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom