Re: Blackhawk CQC Serpa holster (review)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
29th of may last year, 23yo kid hit my 86 Bronco II (they set high by the way)I had bought new. It flipped 3-5 times per wits, an Opelika Alabama PD. I was out for a few an woke up to find myself sliding upside down in the divider. The kid that hit me in the r/r was speeding per all wits and driving erratic. OPD officers had issue with his version at the site. The thought never entered my mind to sue Ford, and I was quit pissed at the lawyers I had to retain for even bringing that up, Ford was not involved in the stupid-ness of 23yo kid an did nothing wrong. </div></div>
What about your insurance company suing the 23 year old kid under theories of negligence? Or did the thought not cross your mind that such a suit would involve tort claims? Products liability is NOT the only kind of tort claim.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rez187</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
downzero since your post where you talked about law suits i realized your are a huge detriment to the gun community and i hope one day i am fortunate enough to write you a nice fat citation! its guys like you who give hard working Americans a bad name. if you dont like the holster dont buy it we dont need to hear your lame unintelligent arguments, i for one find them anti gun and very socialistic in nature......instead of banning the serpa lets ban your way of thinking. </div></div>
Let me get this straight:
1. I'm a detriment to the gun community by pointing out the flaws in a holster design that could result in an unnecessary, expensive, and painful accident to a user? Before you rant about how stupid someone is for shooting themselves, recognize that real people--some who could probably write a sentence in the English language (which you appear incapable of doing) have already injured themselves, and the Serpa is/was quite possibly a contributing factor.
2. I give hard working Americans a bad name? Is there any basis at all for that comment or was it just a personal insult?
3. My arguments are lame and unintelligent, yet you're the one hurling personal insults in a post that is void of nearly all sentence structure and full of grammatical errors? And even putting that aside, your post offers no rational basis to criticize my judgment.
4. My arguments are SOCIALISTIC in nature??!!? Just what does products liability, enforced by private individuals against other private firms, have to do with government ownership of the means of production? Please enlighten me, as I have a degree in economics and I thought I knew enough about the distinction between capitalism and socialism such that I would know it when I see it.
I hate to resort to pointing this out, but I'm pretty sure that if you filed a citation that included a report, it might possibly be so rife with errors that no prosecutor could make heads or tails of it. In fact, I read police reports all day long and I don't think I've ever seen one that was so void of facts and sentence structure as that "paragraph" you just wrote.
I bet you're the pride of your department and I'm sure you're an excellent witness on cross examination. You should tell your sergeant that he needs to give you an award for your excellent communications skills.
You guys, this has been an interesting and long thread, which has deviated quite a ways from discussions of the holster design. <span style="font-style: italic">Obviously </span>I don't think everyone's going to agree with me that the holster is unsafe. I actually would prefer it that people DO disagree, because if we all agreed, we wouldn't need a forum to discuss things. But seriously, I'm a <span style="font-style: italic">socialist </span>now because I think seatbelts should hold passengers in their seats, that bullet proof vests should protect their wearers, etc.? Sorry, but that's just not anything even close to resembling wise discussion. Expecting products to perform as intended and not be unreasonably dangerous has nothing to do with economic systems. Reasonable minds can differ about whether something is unreasonably dangerous or not, and I'm fine with that. That's why we have juries. Your peers will decide the facts of a hypothetical lawsuit. But hurling a barrage of personally-directed insults because my opinion is not in line with yours is just ridiculous. Seriously, grow up. The fact is that accidents happen, whether caused by human error or by other factors. If we could rid the world of stupid and accidents, we would do so. Where we strike the balance of safety is a decision that we, as a society, as members of this fine republic must do. You guys think the balance ought to be struck differently than me. That's fine. I don't agree. In fact, I think that deterring crippling accidents is almost as serious a social concern as is fighting crime.
Also, I have spent at least some portion of my professional career arguing against things just like I'm citing here. I don't think that the Corvair was "unsafe at any speed." I don't think that the Ford Pinto or the Chevy pickups from the 80s were dangerous. I don't think that a gun with a 3 lb trigger, or one without a mechanical active thumb safety, or without a magazine disconnect is unsafe. I don't think that every gun needs a loaded chamber indicator. I think that double action was a solution to a non-existent problem, etc.
Despite all of my thoughts on all of those other safety-related concerns, I do think that the Serpa is unsafe. I've outlined why--because I believe much safer reasonable alternative designs exist, period. Accordingly, I don't "like" the Serpa and no, I won't be buying one.
