Comments by "Dan" (@Dan-di9jd) on "CBS Chicago" channel.

Actually I kind of agree with the lawsuit even as a gun owner. Like an AR15, like Colt will put a block on the channel where the sear will go. So you'd have to do some pretty heavy modification in order to make it work but in some lowers, you can use simple illegal modifications to make it trip in full. Whereas if glock did nothing to change the design, and they knew that there was a easy way to make the modification, and did nothing, then yes, they should be sued to start making the gun have at least some sort of block to make it harder to install the modifications without heavy tooling that people normally wouldn't have.
4
Well it's like those Kia that made it easy to steal. So someone could steal it, go rob someone, and use it as a getaway car. If Kia knew that there was an easy way to hack into their cars, and did absolutely nothing to prevent it, then yes, someone should be able to sue them because the car is in circulation enough and owners should have the ability to change the locks. That's the same concept with glock pistols. They can't do much about existing glocks out there, but going forward they can ensure the modification is not an easy thing to do.
4
@Skibidiscones even if it is unavailable in the area it doesn’t negate the fact that you can do simple modifications to the gun to make it go full auto. It’s not so much about the fact companies make them but rather you can do it at home with little knowledge of tools or how the gun operates. That’s what the lawsuit is about and the fact Glock knew of it and did not try to make it more difficult to do. They can’t modify current guns but they can most certainly change their designs going forward.
2
Most of these are ccw holders forgetting they can’t bring a firearm. Though usually they simply cite you and confiscate the gun. I’m surprised they arrested him instead.
2
Well no, I disagree. The problem here is that Glock knew of a simple modification that could make it go into full auto. While they can't control what someone criminally do with their firearm, they can control modifications that would make it illegal. On an AR15, for example, colt would put a sear block on their lowers which makes it hard to do without some heavy tooling and precise measurements. Most triggers have the end block on there that makes it impossible to install a three switch safety lever on them and make it impossible to catch a sear hook. The uppers also usually have a block on them that makes it hard to do simple modifications without heavy tools. So yes, gun makers are ensuring simple modifications can't be made. Why can't glock do the same?
2
@Dnlwsr90 regardless of what my opinions are it’s case law that if a company knows of a potential misuse of their products but fails to make appropriate corrects then yes they can be sued. Your example of a hammer is incorrect and does not apply here because a hammer cannot be modified such that it’s a better window smasher.
1
@wjbarricklow a misuse through design is different than misuse from unintended purpose. Like if I tried to use a gun as a bottle opener and shot myself in the face I wouldn’t have a case. But if the gun included a bottle opener and I shot myself in the process I’d have some basis. Making a Glock slip into full auto is not intended but due to a design flaw one can do so with little knowledge. That is pretty serious.
1
Keep in mind anyone can bring a lawsuit. So if glock made the change that will play into the lawsuit no doubt. It's hard to tell if they'll win or not but I think the suit will move forward if they can show the modification and what sort of steps glock took to correct it. @Ggugc55
1
@Skibidiscones again it’s not an “item” that’s doing it but rather simple instructions you find online. There are no companies involved.
1
@Skibidiscones also keep in mind suing someone doesn’t always mean money is involved. It could be a lawsuit to make them accountable but chances are they’ll be requested to pay some money.
1
It might be the max they can sue for. Mexico has some pretty progressive laws.
1