Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Remington under fire
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kevin Thomas" data-source="post: 444983" data-attributes="member: 15748"><p>"This will be decided in court. And, it will be reflected in mounting legislation. " rscott5028</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I agree completely, but I'd take that one step further. It'll also be reflected in future complaints about lousy factory triggers that won't break at anything less than 15 lbs, prices doubling on new firearms to cover the lawyers cut of future lawsuits, and makers like Arnold Jewell, Timney and Giesslle calling it quits because it isn't worth the time, money or effort needed to protect yourself from some idiot with poor gun handling skills. </p><p> </p><p>Guns are dangerous. Wouldn't be much use if they weren't. We accept certain inherent dangers when we use, handle or put ourselves in the proximity of them. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if safetys were eliminated on most guns because I see them used as excuses for poor gun handling skills far too often. Both triggers and safetys are mechanical, which means they have the ability to fail if they're improperly assembled, poorly maintained or incorrectly adjusted. That's why we preach muzzle awareness and hammer people so hard on firearms safety practices. I've had issues with Remington triggers, but never with new rifles in proper order that hadn't been monkeyed with. The CNBC piece was blatantly biased against guns and gun ownership (gee, who'd 'a thunk it!), and hardly what I'd regard as much of a credible source. Just remember who your diving into bed with if you want to side with their take on this.</p><p> </p><p>Kevin Thomas</p><p>Lapua USA</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kevin Thomas, post: 444983, member: 15748"] "This will be decided in court. And, it will be reflected in mounting legislation. " rscott5028 I agree completely, but I'd take that one step further. It'll also be reflected in future complaints about lousy factory triggers that won't break at anything less than 15 lbs, prices doubling on new firearms to cover the lawyers cut of future lawsuits, and makers like Arnold Jewell, Timney and Giesslle calling it quits because it isn't worth the time, money or effort needed to protect yourself from some idiot with poor gun handling skills. Guns are dangerous. Wouldn't be much use if they weren't. We accept certain inherent dangers when we use, handle or put ourselves in the proximity of them. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if safetys were eliminated on most guns because I see them used as excuses for poor gun handling skills far too often. Both triggers and safetys are mechanical, which means they have the ability to fail if they're improperly assembled, poorly maintained or incorrectly adjusted. That's why we preach muzzle awareness and hammer people so hard on firearms safety practices. I've had issues with Remington triggers, but never with new rifles in proper order that hadn't been monkeyed with. The CNBC piece was blatantly biased against guns and gun ownership (gee, who'd 'a thunk it!), and hardly what I'd regard as much of a credible source. Just remember who your diving into bed with if you want to side with their take on this. Kevin Thomas Lapua USA [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Remington under fire
Top