We check Teddy bears for safety; why not guns?

HoustonChronicle.com ^ | April 4, 2002, 5:47PM | CHRIS HAHN

[On the Road to Serfdom]

I agree. I might even go further and say I don’t think a lawsuit by someone with a family member or friend killed in this particular situation would be frivolous. (Unlike almost all the other gun lawsuits). A gun really should not go off when disengaging the safety. However, I don’t think such a suit should be successful because the accident is proof in itself that reasonable care was not taken with the person handling the firearm. So while not frivolous, lawsuits over this should be decided in favor of Remington.

[supercat]

A gun really should not go off when disengaging the safety. However, I don’t think such a suit should be successful because the accident is proof in itself that reasonable care was not taken with the person handling the firearm. So while not frivolous, lawsuits over this should be decided in favor of Remington.

Certainly nobody should chamber a 30-06 round if they're in a typically-constructed building in a densely-populated area. And if the person who loaded the round was also the one who discharged the weapon, that should pretty well nix Remington's liability.

On the other hand, suppose someone dies (of non-firearm causes) and someone finds in his apartment a Remington rifle with the safety engaged. How should this person handle it? To be sure, the imprudence of the decedent loading the weapon would probably still let Remington off the hook, but I can't really think of any good way for the person finding the weapon to handle it unless they happen to have 30-06-rated 'snail trap' or a few sand barrels. I frankly don't think any firearm should require such a setup to be unloaded safely.