User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:46:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Hurrah for the jury!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:47:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:47:59 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy done. over. game. set. match. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:48:38 AM EDT
[#4]
But ... but ... but ... but ... the gun just went off!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:49:04 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy done. over. game. set. match. 100% |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:50:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy It also helps not to have a round in the chamber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:50:37 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:51:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Good for Remington. Glad to see things go in their favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:53:33 AM EDT
[#9]
Good.
Obey Rule #2, and you will be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:54:32 AM EDT
[#10]
This week is starting out with all kinds of good news.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:59:44 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:00:00 AM EDT
[#12]
Loaded rifle... inside a truck...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:00:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy This. Yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:01:13 AM EDT
[#14]
They should make the asshat repay their legal fees.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:11:57 AM EDT
[#15]
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:13:39 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:15:04 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
http://www.biggamehunt.net/blogs/bghjournal/jury-rules-remington-washington-lawsuit "Thomas D. Hull Jr., had contended he was injured by a defective rifle that discharged inside his truck. Hull was wounded at about 5:30 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009, by a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle being unloaded by his hunting partner, Joseph Sotomayor, then 45, also of Port Angeles, according to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office. Hull was shot in the upper right thigh, Hull said Thursday." hmmm..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:15:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:16:53 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I also believe that Remington called bullshit. They made a very good counterargument in a video published after the hit piece. Quoted: This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:17:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.biggamehunt.net/blogs/bghjournal/jury-rules-remington-washington-lawsuit "Thomas D. Hull Jr., had contended he was injured by a defective rifle that discharged inside his truck. Hull was wounded at about 5:30 p.m. Oct. 25, 2009, by a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle being unloaded by his hunting partner, Joseph Sotomayor, then 45, also of Port Angeles, according to the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office. Hull was shot in the upper right thigh, Hull said Thursday." hmmm..... This one isn't as 'wise' as the other one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:17:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Did remington make dumbass point a rifle at another dumbass? I could understand if it was a holstered pistol and a leg wound, but with a rifle, there is no excuse, especially inside of a truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:17:38 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. More importantly, the jury saw both sides and found in Remington's favor, which supports that the hit piece was bull shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:20:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Nice work by Remington's counsel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:46:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy That sounds, familiar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:48:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. Preach it brother. As soon as you hear the other side, you won't have that opinion. I know, I felt Rem was responsible too, until I found out about the shenanigans and half truths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 11:56:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. That was part of a concentrated PR effort by the plaintiff's attorney group to sway public opinion prior to the trial/verdict. There was HUGE money and politcal hay to be made over nailing Remington and all the stops where pulled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:01:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. More importantly, the jury saw both sides and found in Remington's favor, which supports that the hit piece was bull shit. Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:01:31 PM EDT
[#28]
good now they can use some of that money they didnt have to pay out to fix QC problems..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:15:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Sometimes you can break one of the rules, but if you ever break 2 or more the results will invariably be injury or death.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:19:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. More importantly, the jury saw both sides and found in Remington's favor, which supports that the hit piece was bull shit. Rather, the M700 is defective but this particular incident had human causes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:23:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Thankfully some from this site weren't on the Jury.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:24:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Sometimes you can break one of the rules, but if you ever break 2 or more the results will invariably be injury or death. Pretty much. The rules are designed to provide multiple layers of safety. You could break any one of the rules all day and probably not have any serious problems. But when you break more than one, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:25:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy Personal responsibility and all that 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:25:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. More importantly, the jury saw both sides and found in Remington's favor, which supports that the hit piece was bull shit. Rather, the M700 is defective but this particular incident had human causes. How is the m700 defective? My dad has a few copies in different calibers, which have bee dead nuts reliable for more years than I have been alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:27:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy This is not a bad idea. You know, they should have some sort of predefined set of rules for the safe handling of firearms that includes this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:28:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Nice work by Remington's counsel. There go you lawyers sticking together again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:29:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Both of you saw One Side of the story. There is another side to the story. More importantly, the jury saw both sides and found in Remington's favor, which supports that the hit piece was bull shit. Rather, the M700 is defective but this particular incident had human causes. How is the m700 defective? My dad has a few copies in different calibers, which have bee dead nuts reliable for more years than I have been alive. The main issue is defective and/or sensitive triggers and bolt handles that fall off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:30:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy That sounds, familiar. Ehhhhh Macman37 just pulled that out of his ass.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:31:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy +100000000000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:33:09 PM EDT
[#40]
To get shot in the thigh by your buddy while in a motor vehicle takes a level of stupidity well beyond anything the trigger mechanism caused. I have never had any issue with mine. Finally, a jury with some common sense ! Just my .02 on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:35:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy Well, they should still know to not let it go off. You know. For the children.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:36:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. So you are saying CNBC ran a one sided, anti-gun hit piece? I find that hard to believe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:42:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Did remington make dumbass point a rifle at another dumbass? I could understand if it was a holstered pistol and a leg wound, but with a rifle, there is no excuse, especially inside of a truck. Just FYI, one of the people killed as part of a similar lawsuit was a little girl. While I agree one must always follow the four rules, calling the victims dumbasses or asshats is very crass and has no respect for human life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:45:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Did remington make dumbass point a rifle at another dumbass? I could understand if it was a holstered pistol and a leg wound, but with a rifle, there is no excuse, especially inside of a truck. Just FYI, one of the people killed as part of a similar lawsuit was a little girl. While I agree one must always follow the four rules, calling the victims dumbasses or asshats is very crass and has no respect for human life. I feel horrible for the victims. I believe the dumbass was the one holding the rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:53:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Did remington make dumbass point a rifle at another dumbass? I could understand if it was a holstered pistol and a leg wound, but with a rifle, there is no excuse, especially inside of a truck. Just FYI, one of the people killed as part of a similar lawsuit was a little girl. While I agree one must always follow the four rules, calling the victims dumbasses or asshats is very crass and has no respect for human life. If you let your friends point loaded guns at you while in your truck, you're a dumbass. IIRC the girl was killed by her mother, who was pointing a loaded rifle at her. She was ignoring 3 of the 4 rules. The mother is a dumb ass. The dead little girl is a tragic victim of her mother's dumbassery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:54:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This one, I call a miscarriage. There has been a program on CNBC, where the designer of the 700 verified the rifle was known to be defective before production was even started. The original cost of fixing was 5 cents. The designer put in place a quality control program to weed out the defective units, which was shut down immediately after his retirement. This was supported by documents obtained in one of the lawsuits. For a company to knowingly sell defective firearms for decades should be criminal. I believe that Remington should have been found to be partially liable. Did remington make dumbass point a rifle at another dumbass? I could understand if it was a holstered pistol and a leg wound, but with a rifle, there is no excuse, especially inside of a truck. Just FYI, one of the people killed as part of a similar lawsuit was a little girl. While I agree one must always follow the four rules, calling the victims dumbasses or asshats is very crass and has no respect for human life. I remember seeing that in the subject piece. I remember thinking that, at some point, a woman must have pointed a loaded rifle at her daughter. Very sad in many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:55:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy Personal responsibility and all that That has nothing to do with whether a safety functions properly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 12:56:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do not point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy This is not a bad idea. You know, they should have some sort of predefined set of rules for the safe handling of firearms that includes this. Someone should really get on that. Really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 1:19:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Ban guns now! All they do is wait for a chance to kill us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2011 1:31:16 PM EDT
[#50]
The Sudden Unintended Acceleration of the gun world.
In other words, completely bogus! This gun just went off by itself even though in every attempt to replicate the failure the gun did not malfunction. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
