Can you cite the plaintiffs' argument?
Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article:
https://portermedium.com/2019/07/la...as-vegas-massacre-that-killed-58-injured-500/
The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.
Yeah, the gist of it is paragraph 92: "Despite the fact that bump stocks... unequivocally converted AR-15s into fully automatic machine guns, the Defendant Manufacturers did nothing to change the design features of the weapon that rendered it susceptible to simple modification."
And what were those design features that the manufacturers refused to change? As you cited: "powerful" recoil and removable stocks.
At what stage of manufacture is the powerful recoil added? If I were buying any kind of firearm, I'd definitely want them to omit the recoil, even though it would ruin my chances of bump-firing or bump stock modification. Of course, some would complain that my recoil-free weapon was far deadlier than normal due to its much greater ease of accurate repeat fire, and should therefore be made illegal. But it wouldn't come to that, because it's physically impossible.* That's why I'm suggesting they should have sued Isaac Newton.
As for removable stocks, guns are manufactured out of assembled parts, and stocks are made of different materials than the lock, for good reasons. Should the manufacturer have bonded the stocks in place with Gorilla Glue to make sure no one can remove and replace them? (It wouldn't be strong enough anyhow.) Or used one-way screws? (Which can easily be drilled out.) If they found a way, it would make them impossible to repair. All to prevent a user modification that was legal. And which wouldn't have prevented people from designing bump stock modifications that clamped onto the stock instead of replacing it.
I'm not judging our firearms laws here. I'm judging the merits of this lawsuit under those laws. Given that gun manufacturers have been given legal immunity from liability for the fact that their products fire bullets, this suit attempts to hold them accountable for negligently failing to magic away their rifles' recoils and for negligently making guns out of parts that can be disassembled. It's nonsense.
*Yes, there are such things as recoilless rifles. No, that technology can't be used for small arms. Or it if were, it would make it even easier to convert the weapon to highly accurate repeat fire using only simple external parts.
