Posted on 04/05/2002 3:26:03 AM PST by rw4site
You know why they include that age, right? Because the overwhelming majority of those deaths are gang members between 18 and 19 years old.
This has been true since 1926.
No, SAAMI isn't a governmental organization, but then, neither is IEEE, ANSI, etc.
The government didn't establish, for example, the standards for electrical wiring in your home, a professional standards organization did.
Ditto for pretty much every technology extant.
Firearms are no different - SAAMI creates standards and submits them for approval to ANSI, and the manufacturers abide by them.
Go to http://www.nssn.org/search.html, and select "SAAMI" in the "Developed by" field.
This nonsense about how firearms aren't subject to standards is a lie - and the propagators of the lie need to be called on it.
While there are many problems with the logic of this article, the main problem starts right here. I don't want a federal agency inspecting anything I use. It is the responsiblility of the car dealer to provide accurate information about how safe their vehicles are and the buyer to ensure that the car he purchases meets his requirements. At no point should an intelligent buyer "rely" on a federal agency's criteria for safety or their tests for meeting this criteria. The reason(besides the obvious one that this simply isn't what the government is there for) is that a federal agency is less likely to do a good job of providing an accurate assessment of a car's safety than the company building and selling the car.
Why? Because if the dealer provides inaccurate information, he will almost certainly lose a lot of money or even is ability to sell cars. That is what the government is supposed to do, provide a legal system that punishes criminals(including dishonest car dealers).
But what happens to a federal agency that causes a death or injury by giving false information about a cars safety? Nothing. The victim's first instinct would be to blame the car's manufacturer. Thus you have the company being blamed for the federal agency's error. Even if the federal agency is blamed and forced to pay in a civil suit, the money comes from our taxes. Thus, the citizens are punished for the agency's error. Either way, the federal agency is not punished for its mistakes and therefore it has no real motivation for providing accurate information.
When it comes to warning labels about small parts on toys, any parent who can't make their own decisions about what is safe or unsafe for a child to play with shouldn't have children.
Because teddy bears are intended for use by two-year-olds, MORON!
All these other testing programs, some of which are probably questionable anyway, protect the purchasers/users of the items. He tries to use this as precedent to test guns to make them more safe for third parties. Faulty logic. I don't think you'll find overwhelming opposition to auto safety testing among car owners, but if you did, I'd strongly oppose that too. What right does have to demand safety testing of products when the people who buy and use the products oppose such? He's pretending to draw a parallel between two activities even he doesn't see as equivalent; so he's being intellectually dishonest.
Guns are not intended to be "safe". If you don't like it, don't buy one.
Scares me to know that many law enforcement officers would confiscate peoples' firearms because their retirement pension was dependant on it. Like Thomas Jefferson said: (paraphrased) The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
--Boris
I say in short time we will see some “ gun nut “ start shooting at people from some high point. Any takers?
How should someone in a second-story apartment clear an old Model 700 in, e.g., 30-06 if the safety is engaged?
While many firearms require the safety to be disengaged before clearing, many of those (1) are of a low enough power that there can be a "safe direction" in a second-story apartment (2) have a design which makes the type of failure exhibited by the Model 700 unlikely or impossible, or (3) permit a cautious person to obstruct the hammer or firing pin before disengaging the safety.
While I don't think Remmington should be liable in cases where people don't use proper caution in handling their firearms, I would regard the design of the Model 700 defective in that the maximum level of care a person can reasonably exercise may not be sufficient to prevent injury.
Exactly! Some people can never labor under enough regulation to achieve the risk-free existence they apparently crave. "Can't we regulate this, too? I feel a little uneasy about it."
It took awhile, but I finally figured out that you have words to say about the above POS that your reply would have earned a deletion by the most liberal moderator.
Good response!
Your apartment example does not fly. Just an excuse not to follow safety rules. If walls/floors are too thin make or find a backstop (A thick dresser ?). I don’t know what it takes to stop a 30-06 but if I lived in an apartment above the lowest floor and owned a 30-06 it would be my responsibility to find out.
I am not saying I would own such a gun but that is what free market is about. Let the customers punish Remington if they agree this as an issue. If not, so be it.
We check Teddy bears for safety; why not guns?
Sounds like a sufficiently long duration of time has elapsed since 911, such that the usual idiots now feel it is safe for them to come out in public again with their infantile arguments for "gun control".
If I owned a 30-06, I'd probably want to know what would be required for a reliable backstop. I don't think a dresser loaded with clothes would suffice.
Perhaps this is just MHO, but any decent firearm should be clear-able, with care, without risk of discharge. There are many ways by which this objective may be accomplished with zero added cost depending upon the design of the firearm. Even if one wishes to use a firing-pin or hammer-block safety whose design would potentially permit the firing pin or hammer to come off the sear and be held only be the safety, inclusion of an additional sear-catching notch in the hammer or hammer-catching "shelf" on the safety would prevent a discharge.
For whatever reason Remmington didn't do that. Since that's old history and Remmington has both disclosed the problem and corrected it in newer units, I think any liability today should be restricted to fixing any Model 700's held by people who want them fixed (though I suspect the old style may be more 'collectible'). Since such fix should require only the replacement of one or two parts, it should not be overly expensive to implement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.