Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/10/2001 1:33:45 AM EDT
They manufactured the TEC 9 that was used in an office shooting and the victims families tried to sue them for the criminal acts of the individual. Many things I've read try to say the manufacturer marketed to criminals claiming the guns' finish resisted fingerprints and a barrel shroud facilitated rapid assault firing. Does anybody have any comments about what the ads really said? I think it's a bunch of anti-gun hyperbole.
Link Posted: 8/10/2001 3:04:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2001 3:13:44 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
The items the anti gun crowd took from Navegar's ads were not complete. As far as the finger print resistant finish, it was referring to a new type of coating and texture that reduced the likelyhood of finger prints being visible to the naked eye. Also the new coating was advertised as being reisistant to damage from known gun cleaning agents. The barrel shroud was advertised as a safety feature as the early models did not have one, requiring the user to grip the front by the mag well where the hand could contact the barrel. Just goes to show that a sound bite can be tailored for the purpose the user has in mind. Another point in the courts decision was that after Ferri was arrested and his home searched, the Police found only one or two pamphlets for Navegar guns and those were old ones. Not for the guns he purchased ( illegally with a false Nevada DL ). According to the police reports [b]NONE[/b] of the gun mags found in his home had any ads for Navegar, and in their interviews with the gun and pawn shops he purchased from they found the store owners tried to talk him out of buying a the Tec9 because it was not a suitable firearm for his stated use which was plnking and home defense. So in addition to a CA state law which specifically protects gun makers from this kind of lawsuit, the sourt found that niether Navegar or their retailers influenced Ferri's decision to use a Tec9 because of it's "mass killing" ability. The whole text of the courts decision can be read here: [url]http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S083466.PDF[/url] It's 72 pages long!
Link Posted: 8/10/2001 9:05:24 PM EDT
Thanks Pthfndr, That was very informative. I think it's a stretch to prove any gunmaker designs a gun that criminals will desire over others. For them availability and concealability are all important. Aggressive or military styling may appeal to young buyers and these purchases may filter down to the criminal element through irresponsible ownership(loss by theft) or black market trading but have no technical advantage for the criminal. Again, it's more about what can be obtained quickly or easily. IMHO, if you were to market to the young buyer or the buyer who's lower on the socio-economic scale then you may find more of these guns get used in crime, but that's just a guess.
Top Top