Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arcxjo t1_iyuqnbg wrote

> The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, says there have been over 100 incidents of the P320 pistol unintentionally discharging when the user believed they did not pull the trigger.

If your beliefs and the facts on whether you pulled a trigger aren't in alignment, maybe you shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

1

SubstantialFigment t1_iyurb3s wrote

There have been legit recalls for this sort of defect.

39

coyote-1 t1_iywu44h wrote

But not by SIG. They had a “voluntary upgrade” on this, but not a recall. Which they should… but if they did, would make them legally vulnerable in dozens of incidents.

The gun does in fact fire spontaneously. Sig refusing to officially acknowledge this is a travesty, and only possible because of special legislation sponsored and passed by the GOP that holds gun companies legally not responsible for the consequences of their products.

1

[deleted] t1_iyurftu wrote

[deleted]

0

arcxjo t1_iyurrse wrote

Not saying it isn't possible, but a law-talking guy who's suing them putting out a press release isn't a definitive source any more than all the Facebook ads about Roundup are proof it's carcinogenic.

−7

be-like-water-2022 t1_iyus435 wrote

In 2016, the U.S Army adopted the P320 for use in the field, but not before it underwent significant testing. The Army’s drop test revealed that the gun would discharge on impact at certain angles. Clearly, this was a concern that they needed to have addressed. Sig Sauer met the Army’s requests for a modified trigger mechanism to fix the problem — but implemented the change only for military sales.

15

SubstantialFigment t1_iyurzck wrote

Remington did a recall for this very problem for a long gun. It has happened before.

4

arcxjo t1_iyuvww1 wrote

That's irrelevant to proving anything about this particular gun unless they used the same parts.

−6

BirdsbirdsBURDS t1_iyuxv4c wrote

It establishes the fact that it can happen. This lawsuit going forward now is stating that it has happened. That’s literally what we’re looking at. It’s not like there’s just this one woman making this random claim against a random gun. She’s one of many making the claim against the same model. Let them figure it out in court now. But saying they don’t have a case because you can’t believe it or significantly doubt it is pointless unless you’re involved in the case.

5

killerbee2319 t1_iyurt6j wrote

Believe in this instance is a protection against lawsuits wiggle word in case one of the multiple claims is proven to have involved the user doing something. While I generally have a low opinion of police officers and their ability to handle a firearm properly, this many intances, including holstered guns, amongst relatively veteran officers is pretty indicative.

8

Omegalazarus t1_iyyderi wrote

This has been documented on camera. The verbage is purely legalese.

1

Large-Garden4833 t1_iz3ti0w wrote

That’s not the point and you know it. Anyone would question what happened if a gun randomly went off . Don’t be dense

1

arcxjo t1_iz3vgey wrote

And any defense lawyer would question any holes in the plaintiff's story. Don't be dense.

1

CatAvailable3953 t1_iyw3zlz wrote

Exactly

−2

InternMan t1_iyx9c2o wrote

No. Several manufactures have had defects in the trigger system that will allow the gun to discharge when the trigger is not pulled. Adding in drop safeties to make sure the gun won't fire if dropped or knocked is part of designing a firearm.

Remington is one of the bigger cases of this kind of defect, affecting a ton of hunting and competition rifles. This is not new. What is new is that Sig doesn't want to do a recall.

3