The danger I see in the background is what the threat represents in our lives when applied to other scenarios. This is of SIGNIFICANT concern to me.
Let's boil down the Glock topic to a simple sentence, and then apply that same logic to other situations ...
- Glock is changing their design because the product is easily manipulated to become something they didn't account for, and they are facing massive lawsuit defense costs as well as potential legal judgements.
- What would happen to Ford if they were sued because the Mustang 2.3L EB is easily "tuned" (converted) from 320hp to over 500hp, making it much more dangerous to the general public? (obviously, this isn't limited to a Ford product; pretty much anything with a turbo DI engine these days can nearly double the power output with 5 minutes of a ECU program update).
- What would happen to Mann/Hummel if they were sued because their oil filters were illegally used as "noise suppression components" on a firearm? There's not any "conversion" even necessary; it's just an unintended use that the filter industry doesn't consider a proper application of their product.
- What would happen to CF Industries Holdings and other companies which make ammonium nitrate? Is it their fault that two nefarious individuals combined their product with fuel oil and blew up the Murrah building?
- Why isn't Wusthof or Cangshan being sued for making kitchen knives? Aren't those used in an unintended manner to slay people?
My concern is that we are experiencing a dangerous precedent being set. Because of the controversial nature of firearms (and Glock in particular), there seems to be a general acceptance of the end-justifying-the-means from some. But once a legal precedent is set, it's often applied elsewhere. Where does this end?
The irony is that there are laws and legal precedents already in place which are supposed to protect these companies from the unintended use of their products. And yet, here we are, seeing Glock being attacked from many states because of the unintended consequences of their design. A large part of this comes from the lack of commitment to the rule of law. There are federal laws to protect the lawful commerce in firearms, and yet several states are still suing Glock. It's "lawfare" at its core. I abhor this concept. They essentially want to use the court system to bully Glock; as large as Glock is, it's still not able to defend multiple suits at the same time. It would be great if courts would honor the rule of law, but abject bias is obviously in play.
I don't blame Glock for changing; this is the lessor cost alternative and a matter of corporate survival. It's highly likely that the "new" V series will have many similar features (probably will use the same mags and other dimensional components, making for a lot less tooling changes and high parts compatibility). The change is likely to address the obvious elephant in back of the slide. Maybe they will find a way to improve their trigger feel; a characteristic that is the complaint of many (though it never bothered me at all).
In the end, I just have to wonder what this shift signifies in a legal sense? Are we to a point where we can see any legit company threatened for the misuse of their product? Because there exists a nearly limitless ability to stretch this concept into every corner of our lives.
).