I have a problem with a company that puts a defective gadget on a gun for litigation purposes and then puts the burden on the consumer to deactivate it and give the seller a potential litigation advantage (e.g. "It's not our fault because the consumer deactivated a safety device that could have prevented it from firing at all."). S&W probably figures that the possible expense of the gun not working when a person needs it to work is less than the expense of dealing with an argument that it made an "unsafe" gun.
Last edited by Cheyenne; 03/20/15. Reason: add stuff
