https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1j316uh/mexicos_suit_against_us_gun_makers_comes_before/
I miss when these subreddits were good
https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1j3dbw2/mexicos_suit_against_us_gun_makers_comes_before/
https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1j3eh38/supreme_court_to_consider_mexicos_lawsuit_against/
Liberalgunowners is more sensible than most redditors
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
/u/connor_wa15h yeah except this is like making the auto manufacturing companies liable if somebody does a drive-by shooting with their car.
The equivalent you're looking for would be a law that requires, for example, all newly-manufactured guns to have a safety. (pretty sure they already do ofc)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no they dont and thatd be a stupid law. Also his comparison is stupid as shit bc being able to drive a car isnt jn anyway a fundamental right.
!slots100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can buy guns with no safety at all? I kinda figured they were standard issue tbh, every gun I've ever fired has had one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My revolver doesn't have a safety, but then again it has an 18lb spring. so
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
a lot of bolt actions dont have safeties. Also some pistols will come with a compound trigger instead of a safety
!slots400
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
TIL
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a good thing safety's are a thing because if they were, it would be really hard for me to accidentally kill myself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I could really use some safety in my life.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I hope you keep yourself safe, buddy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This thing on the trigger is the only "safety" the vast majority of modern handguns have:
And a lot of them don't even have that since it doesn't really serve any useful purpose (anything that depresses the trigger will almost certainly depress the safety too). That's why "Glock leg" is a thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The only handguns I've ever fired had them, not on the trigger, but above the trigger. I'm not sure what the purpose of having a safety on the trigger even is.
I also didn't realize there was so much opposition to them. They don't seem to really make the gun any less useful or anything, or even less convenient to use. Seems similar to people arguing that seatbelts shouldn't be required or something. Maybe I've missed something though, I don't go shooting very often.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The dual trigger thing was introduced by Glock so they could say the gun technically has some sort of safety.
The theory is that handguns don't need manual safeties because modern holsters are already designed to add the necessary level of safety by covering the trigger when the gun isn't in use. Unlike long guns which need safeties because they're carried with the trigger exposed.
As for me, my guns have safeties.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Half of the modern firearms I own have no "safety" in the sense of having a safety switch (which is what I assume you're referring to). But like
@butthole said they have some other component like a double-action trigger, decocker, or are a single-action revolver with a shielded firing pin.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Pistols primarily
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
pistol safeties are common so future doctors don't blow their nuts off
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's worse actually, it's like saying there should be a law holding auto manufacturers responsible for committing truck-of-peace ramming attacks on civilians. Like what kind of standards would make automobiles less deadly in the hands of someone who actively wants to use them to hurt people?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
t. nogunscel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context