Remington 700 Poll

[madmag]

We have an obligation to use these in a safe manner

That's a good and reasonable point. I still have two basic problems.

First it was reasonable for Remington to make Walker's suggested change starting in 1948.

Second, the real truth is there are times when there is no 100% safe direction, there is only what we perceive as the safest direction. I prefer to only have a gun discharge when I pull the trigger.....period.

 

[jmr40]

According to court documents Remington has over 10,000 complaints from owners who claim their guns fired without pulling the trigger. There have only been a handful of injuries and deaths. It seems most Remington owners are pretty careful about muzzle control.

Remington would prefer us to believe all 10,000 of those people really pulled the trigger and just don't remember it.

 

[the blur]

I'd be hard pressed to buy another remington firearm.
I'm looking for a shotgun, and now it'll probably be Benelli.
If remington took responsibility, than maybe I'd change my tune.

Talking about muzzle control only goes so far.

let's say I'm walking in the woods, gun is on sling, muzzle up. Bang, bullet goes 5 miles up, and 5 miles down. hits someone on the way down...

Which has happened upstate NY.
Kid shoots .30 caliber up in the air. bullet stuck old lady coming down 2 towns over. They actually found the kid, and locked him up.

 

[DoctorXring]

.


I have had a long standing rule on the lease I'm manager
of. NO closed bolts on rifles on the property unless in the
blind. NO exceptions.

dxr

.

 

[ethan95]

Safeties are a mechanical device and mechanical devices can fail, the one in your brain works wonders. Those 10 basic rules of fire safety go a long way

 

[user]

Amazing anti-gun responses

Guns are made to be dangerous. That's why they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That's why rule one is, "always point the muzzle in a safe direction", and the second is like unto it: "always treat the gun as if it were loaded and might discharge". Anyone who pointed his gun at another human being and then chambered a round was doing something he knew or ought to have known was unreasonably dangerous. In legal terms, that's not just contributory negligence, that's a "supervening cause" which ought to cut off the liability of the gun manufacturer. I wonder why Remington has been settling all those wrongful death suits (at a rate of about six or seven a year)? I wish I could represent them and take the case to trial. I'd implead the shooter with the claim that Remington isn't liable, and if it is, then it was the shooter who caused the problem, and demand indemnification from him.

 

[madmag]

I wonder why Remington has been settling all those wrongful death suits (at a rate of about six or seven a year)?

Great question. Perhaps searching the details of the suing parties arguments might shed some light on why Remington continues to lose cases.

I wish I could represent them and take the case to trial. I'd implead the shooter with the claim that Remington isn't liable, and if it is, then it was the shooter who caused the problem, and demand indemnification from him.

I am an engineer not an attorney, so I don't know about such legal stuff. But if you are right then I am sure Remington would like to know your argument. It seems a shame that they have lost millions when all they had to do was to point out "it was the shooter who caused the problem".