Whether you think Remington has done anything wrong or not, Anti Gun lawyers and plaintiffs attorneys will go to no end to manipulate the process and twist facts.

That includes using your post here on AR.

As an example of how twisted the logic can be look at the stated objective of this "Anti Violence" support organization.

http://ibs.colorado.edu/cspv/i...=183&vio_name=viopro

PROGRAM SUMMARY:
The Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse was established in 1981 to facilitate the reduction of firearms injuries through the use of the civil justice system. The Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse seeks to: (1) Eliminate defectively manufactured and designed firearms; (2) Expand the legal concept of 'design defect' to include firearms that are used disproportionately to injure people, either accidentally or intentionally; (3) Force manufacturers to make firearms child proof; (4) Expand point of sale liability; (5) Train lawyers and provide them with the most comprehensive information and technical support in the field; and (6) Train community members and activists to recognize the civil justice system as a tool to reduce firearms violence in their area. Participation in the Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse is limited to plaintiffs' attorneys and provides a variety of benefits: (1) Access to the library of case, incident, and manufacturer information; (2) Access to hundreds of depositions and pleadings; (3) Use of staff research time; (4) Access to a list of expert witnesses; (5) Participation in their Attorney Network; (6) Case consultations with Clearinghouse staff; and (7) A subscription to the quarterly Firearms Litigation Reporter. The Clearinghouse does provide the public with referrals to attorneys.

Look carefully at items 2 and 4 at the beginning of the paragraph:

Item 2 - They want to expand the concept of "Design Defect" for firearms that are used disproportionately to injure people even if it was intentional.

I don't condone anything other than self defense but look at the twisted logic. "Let's try to promote suing under the guise of 'design defect' if a gun is even used intentionally to injure another person.

Item 4 - promote point of sale liability. Needs no explanation. This is simply the egregious belief/behavior if somebody got hurt, it must be somebody's fault.

Do I think any individual on AR will get dragged into a deposition, nope.

Do I think plaintiff's attorneys are trolling sites like this looking for dissension and new arguments or ideas? yep, I do.

Welcome to life in the big city, Mike.

Dissension and new arguments?

There will always be dissension and there are no new arguments.

Never take counsel of your fears.

But my views may be atypical on this subject.

When I met the surgeon general, he told me to take up smoking. (Sorry, Rodney. )

MR,

Quite familiar with the Big City. Lived in it all my life.

I see no need to help the "otherside".

There may or may not be new arguments...but we are creating "new data".

This stuff about the Remington trigger that Belk and his other anti gun mates run with has some real bad potentital.

In essence it is about the gun itself being able to over ride stupid gun handling, like letting the safety off while pointing the rifle at a horse trailer.

It would extend to reloading ammo. Even using a 30-378 with muzzle brake on and no ear plugs. Or using a 460 with the brake off amd ramming the scope into the head.

At best we would lose Jewell triggers and similar. We would have sealed triggers that have trigger return spings that the gun company orders from Kenworth or Mack.

Maybe ammo and component projectiles would have to be all wadcutter shape so as to drastically reduce the 6 mile circle.

The list is endless and is all heading to the same desired (by the antis) result.

Mike D. I agree with you 100%. Hence, my post to Jack in the other thread. The anti-gun people don't need any help from those of us who love firearms.

MKane160

Interesting post Mike, I've never heard of that outfit and don't know of a lawyer in it.

<edit> this is the outfit that picketed the Denver NRA show about 1978. They're a liberal 'help' group that sucks taxes for 'programs'.

The problem isn't the lawyers, or the anti groups, but instead it's Remington, and Remington owners.

Remington has had ample opportunity to fix the problems, yet refuse to really address it. If they had spent all the money that they spent on propaganda, PR, attorneys, settlements, fake recalls, etc. on a real recall - of all 700's ever made - and replaced the trigger and shroud, and safety with one that works properly - end of problem. They have adequately proven that they will not do it. I suspect Rem will discontinue the 700 altogether before they will really fix it through a recall.

IMO, the customer is the only person in charge of the outcome and future of the 700. Buy one, and support the status quo. Refuse to be a customer, and see what happens.

IMO, it's not others, but Remington who is bad for gun rights and gun owners, and the 2nd amendment. We didn't design or make the product, but we have a choice to buy into it or not.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
The problem isn't the lawyers, or the anti groups, but instead it's Remington, and Remington owners.

Remington has had ample opportunity to fix the problems, yet refuse to really address it. If they had spent all the money that they spent on propaganda, PR, attorneys, settlements, fake recalls, etc. on a real recall - of all 700's ever made - and replaced the trigger and shroud, and safety with one that works properly - end of problem. They have adequately proven that they will not do it. I suspect Rem will discontinue the 700 altogether before they will really fix it through a recall.

IMO, the customer is the only person in charge of the outcome and future of the 700. Buy one, and support the status quo. Refuse to be a customer, and see what happens.

IMO, it's not others, but Remington who is bad for gun rights and gun owners, and the 2nd amendment. We didn't design or make the product, but we have a choice to buy into it or not.

KB

You know, it wouldn't hurt for you to gain a little knowledge about the topic before making such statements. It sounds to me like you are caught up in the anti Remington fervor based on one sided information. There are clearly two sides to this, and if you are not able or willing to examine both sides of the issue, then at least wait until the dust settles before making such silly statements as these.

If you want to bolster your knowledge of the topic, based on facts and not feelings, then you need to get with a neutral party, someone who does not stand to profit from any legal action against Remington, for a first hand look at the mechanics behind the trigger and any potential problem that may arise from careless maintenance, modification and handling.

But you have to be open minded about it!

Kabluewy

Here is a very simple question for you

Let's say a Remington 700 is "fixed" to your satisfaction then

Would you allow someone to point the "fixed" rifle at you while it is loaded and the safety catch is on?

What about standing in front of it while the saftey catch is let off?

Obviously your answer will be NO. And of course the reason is nothing mechanical is perfect. Which means in turn even after the "fix" Belk's 6 mile circle can still be invaded.

Thus the only answer to make the 6 mile circle safe is to prevent private gun ownership.

OK, I knew I would be scolded.

At one time, I was a neutral party. Even now I have nothing financial to gain from it. Obviously I'm not neutral anymore. What turned me?

From the stuff I've read, it's my opinion that the average person, perhaps like me, could never sort the BS from the truth. And it ain't worth the effort. As with almost everything in life, and the real world, we often make decisions with pieces of the puzzel. If I didn't make a decision or reach an opinion until I was absolutely certain, I would still be wearing diapers.

So, obviously there is room for doubt re Rem, which is what both sides are exploiting. The closest I can describe my attitude/opinion about it is "where there's smoke, there's fire". Plus, I've seen unintentional kabooms from Rems. In those cases, the room for doubt was because of the klutz factor. There is no way to say absolutely for certain that the klutz didn't pull the trigger somehow, as he disengaged the safety. But my intution says that he didn't, and the times I've seen it happen, the guys said they didn't touch the trigger. So, it's a most likely scenerio in my mind, which is good enough for me, but maybe not for some, and maybe not in court.

I'm no mechanical engineer or gunsmith, but I have inspected Rems, both old and new, and re the trigger and safety, I don't like them, and I don't trust them, and furthermore - I don't trust the owners either. I don't trust their judgment, which I classify as rationalizations.

Years ago, looking at the 700, I reached the opinion that the engineering of it, and mfg techniques were to make a product cheaply, to gain a competitive edge in the market, for the sake of profit margin, which put competition like the old Mod 70 at a financial disadvantage. Cheaply made product vs quality, plus advertising and ignorance. Accuracy did the trick, and ignorance overlooked the poor quality of the action, and still does, IMO.

Same thing with the 870 vs Mod 12, and I own a 870. Funny thing, we never hear of accidental kaboom with the 870, and my intuition says to me that's because the trigger finger has a job, which is pushing the safety button, so it can't be in two places at the same time.

This all is so imprecise, except when an accident happens. The cause of it is arguable, whether it happened or not is perhaps most precisely answered. I would rather avoid the latter, even on the basis of hunch or intuition, or somewhat of an educated guess. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

One thing perhaps good is all this discussion about firearm safety, aside from the mechanical parts and pieces.

BTW, I don't like ambulance chasers, or attorneys or their domain either.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Whether you think Remington has done anything wrong or not, Anti Gun lawyers and plaintiffs attorneys will go to no end to manipulate the process and twist facts.

That includes using your post here on AR.

Mike, you mean groups and attorney's like this?

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Custom/Richard-Miller.asp

Of course this one's dead. Or, is purported to be. Too bad, he and his associates could have been a good source for income the next time some poor slob unconsciously touches a hot gun barrel while out shooting.

Where have we heard this?

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Art...isk-to-Consumers.asp

Well, the theory "where there's smoke, there's fire" certainly applies to attorneys and the courts.

I used to be neutral (make that naïve) about attorneys, and courts as well. Unfortunately, not anymore. Imagine, going for many many years, thinking that the courts were mostly fair, and reached reasonable outcomes, and that attorneys are mostly good people. Also, imagine the shock of discovering - it's not so, not true.

I used to believe that one could read the court decisions, especially that written by judges and justices of S.C., and other court documents, and discover the facts, and determine if the outcome made sense. Discovering it ain't so has cause me to feel far more naïve than I want to be - ever. It has loosened the under-pinnings of many aspects of my belief system.

Now, when I read the basis for a court decision, it's with the knowledge that the author (judge or justice) applies a very subjective filter to the chosen words, and most likely it's crafted to fit a pre-disposed view, and perhaps outcome. I think it's so in large part because they have a broad scope of discretion, with impunity. They do not have to objectively abide the law, but use enormous discretion in decipering it, the exceptions, ambiguities, twisted intrepretations, etc. Regularly, the facts themselves are filtered, or partially counted, to support the pre-disposed outcome.

Since childdome I have known about twisting the truth, but I had no idea the extent that could go, until I got a good dose of the courts and attorneys. And, I only saw the tip of the berg, as they say. Sad to say, but the O.J. case really caught my attention (mentioned just as an example).

Now, I consider my intuition as primary reality check, with the humble knowledge of how vulnerable and fallible that is.

If we can't count on our social institutions and those whose job it is to uphold the law, well - you get the picture.

KB

More fun reading.

http://ibs.colorado.edu/cspv/i...=183&vio_name=viopro

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Kabluewy

Here is a very simple question for you

Let's say a Remington 700 is "fixed" to your satisfaction then

Would you allow someone to point the "fixed" rifle at you while it is loaded and the safety catch is on?

What about standing in front of it while the saftey catch is let off?

Obviously your answer will be NO. And of course the reason is nothing mechanical is perfect. Which means in turn even after the "fix" Belk's 6 mile circle can still be invaded.

Thus the only answer to make the 6 mile circle safe is to prevent private gun ownership.

Mike McGuire,

That is about as unsafe and stupid a debate argument as I have even seen!!!

You need to take some time out from this subject and rethink any more posting that some newbe could see, do and get killed!

Not much need to read between the lines in this quote:

"Train community members and activists to recognize the civil justice system as a tool to reduce firearms violence in their area. Participation in the Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse is limited to plaintiffs' attorneys and provides a variety of benefits:"

I'll bet that it's at least partially grant funded - with taxpayer's money.

Really, who could oppose such a worthy and benevolent cause as reducing violence? Do it especially for the children and the elderly, and the dogs running at large. Make your donations today. Here's my PO box, make your donation payable to Kabluewy.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
Mike McGuire,
You need to take some time out

Ray, that's why I didn't address it directly.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Kabluewy

Here is a very simple question for you

Let's say a Remington 700 is "fixed" to your satisfaction then

Would you allow someone to point the "fixed" rifle at you while it is loaded and the safety catch is on?

What about standing in front of it while the saftey catch is let off?

Obviously your answer will be NO. And of course the reason is nothing mechanical is perfect. Which means in turn even after the "fix" Belk's 6 mile circle can still be invaded.

Thus the only answer to make the 6 mile circle safe is to prevent private gun ownership.

Mike McGuire,

That is about as unsafe and stupid a debate argument as I have even seen!!!

You need to take some time out from this subject and rethink any more posting that some newbe could see, do and get killed!

If as you say a person could get killed by reading my post then obviously Remington changing their trigger won't fix a thing.

A people really as stupid as you seem to be suggesting?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
If as you say a person could get killed by reading my post then obviously Remington changing their trigger won't fix a thing.

First of all, to even suggest (even sarcastically) to test a rifle's safety by pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger is completely unsafe. Secondly, the argument is stupid because it has nothing to do with Remington - you should never do this with ANY gun!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
A people really as stupid as you seem to be suggesting?

Yeah and your living proof of it!

In my opinon you are simply highlighting the problem we as gun owners will eventually have with this crusade by Belk and Co

When you 'fix" the Remington and people still get shot then what next. Like gun laws, when they don't work then that is the OK to bring in more of them or stricter laws.

In most things you blokes are well ahead of what happens in Australia. As we often say, what happens in America today will arrive in Australia in 5 years

HOWEVER, whe it comes to gun laws we, unfortunately, are way in front of you blokes. In fact one of main anti gunners, a lesbian called Rebecca Peters is in the employ of that wealthy left wing Greek over in the US and she also coaches your anti gun people

Trust me, Belk's crusade is fucking bad news.

Take Remington out of this for this example. Say a long standing company we'll call brand XX has produced a faulty product worthy of litigation. Many, many people will always take the side of company XX because in their mind do to anything else is "anti-gun". It's no different with the Remington case.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
MR,

Quite familiar with the Big City. Lived in it all my life.

Figure of speech and no offense intended.

Simply trying to say that an "expert" can be found to testify as to the incontrovertible truth and accuracy of anything imaginable.

For the right price, of course.

If they can't find any empirical evidence to back themselves up, many of them will simply invent it out of whole cloth.

Shameful, really.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Simply trying to say that an "expert" can be found to testify as to the incontrovertible truth and accuracy of anything imaginable.

For the right price, of course.

If they can't find any empirical evidence to back themselves up, many of them will simply invent it out of whole cloth.

Shameful, really.

One has to have been there, seen that, to fully appreciate the truth of the above statment. One experience was enought for me.

It's shameful augmented by the fact that the courts will accept the "expert witness" testimony, unless there is an opposing "expert witness", both of whom make good $$, and either or both could be lying.

May the best lie win.

KB

Follow the money- any body see what the stock did ?? They are part of Ceberus.
http://bulletin.accurateshoote...hmaster-marlin-dpms/

The basic argument is that if you sell a rifle with a safety, and the safety is not reliable or unsafe, then the consumer has recourse especially in the USA. Both the design dept and the QC dept must make sure that the safety and trigger operates in the way it was intended. I cannot see that Remington can come clean with more than 75 lawsuits stemming from alleged inadvertent discharges - they have already offered settlements in some cases. They will have to do a recall to show the public that they are serious about user safety.

Unsafe handling is definitely an issue whenever a rifle is pointed in someone's direction even if it was done inadvertently. Remington stands on this premise that if the rifle was not pointed at someone, then it would not have hurt or killed that someone when a shot went off. The fact remains a safety mechanism implies that when the safety is on, the rifle is SAFE. This falls under product liability for which companies can take out insurance. If the record shows that a defect was reported over a period of time and a company persist to install a suspect or defective component then it will stand accused of being reckless with no concern for an individual's safety.

Back to safe handling. There is a school of thought that safeties are not necessary and that the a round should only be chambered just before aiming at the target. This is the safest position, but the negative is that it can make a noise and your quarry can run off. PH's are many a time in a position that he must walk in front of his client that have a loaded gun. I know my PH friend insists that his client will only chamber a round when he commands so. With Mausers that have controlled round feeding, many hunters that I know chamber the round, but do not close bolt until they are ready to fire.

One of the most dangerous situations that do arise is when a few hunters are on a vehicle - all with loaded guns. A rifle can fall or a sudden bump can cause a shot to go off, even with the safety on. A friend of mine 'worked' the trigger on his M77 Ruger to make it lighter, and the result was that it would go off at a slight bump - thus rendering it UNSAFE. Then he had to replace it with a Timney trigger.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by mousegun1:
Follow the money- any body see what the stock did ?? They are part of Ceberus.
http://bulletin.accurateshoote...hmaster-marlin-dpms/

There is no stock at this time.