Without even getting into the discussion of whether or not the flaws or defects exist, if they're going to make the website "p320truth" dot com, it needs to be a presentation or navigable library of all of the receipts which unequivocally prove their position. Not a repeat of a really frustrated-sounding social media post.
If they've litigated this, done the engineering, done the rigorous testing, and are doing the QC, then all of that comes with receipts. If they have the Royal Flush hand which allows them to assert that "This ends now," then show us everything you legally can. Everyone has put their chips in and said, "call."
There's either tons of convincing evidence for every claim they make in their post, which can be shared with us in a transparent and trust-building way, or there isn't.
Sig is an institution which we all want to see do well. None of us want to see gun companies fail, and we want to see strong, worthy, innovative businesses grow as powerful and interested buttresses to our rights. But saying that these quality and safety concerns are illegitimate fabrications of self interested plaintiffs, hacks, grifters, and anti-gun interests is a major "citation needed" moment. Especially since most of the concerned critics don't actually want Sig to fail. We want innovative, safe, reliable guns made by companies who we can be proud of and trust.
#sigsauer #p320