I am going to submit my two cents worth. I have owned at least eight Remington 700s as far back as 1979. I have fired thousands of rounds through those rifles, and I never had an negligent/ accidental discharge. I am sorry that someone was killed and my heart goes out to the family that lost a child, but there were several common safety violations that caused that child’s death. I would want to know why the rifle was loaded in a house. A Remington 700 is not designed to be a home defense firearm, so there was no reason for it to be loaded while indoors. Next, I would like to know why the rifle was not pointed in a safe direction while it was being handled when it discharged. The fact that the bullet ricocheted and then hit the child is irrelevant, the rifle was ultimately not pointed in a safe direction when it was handled. Had the rifle been brought indoors unloaded or had it been handled properly at the time of the discharge there would not have been a death. There were at least two missed opportunities to avoid this tragedy and Remington had no control over either of them.
I am a litigation attorney, and the standards needed to impose liability in a court are significantly higher than the uncontested work product that CNBC broadcasted about Remington 700 rifles. CNBC’s broadcast was crafted to present the viewer with only one conclusion; that the rifle is unsafe. CNBC is known to have an anti-gun bias and I suspect their market has more anti-gun viewers than gun owners. Thankfully Remington produced a response to the CNBC hit piece and posted it on YouTube so everyone can view it.
Lets hypothetically assume that Remington 700 rifles have a design flaw that causes negligent/accidental discharges. The user of the firearm is ultimately responsible for how the firearm is used and for any type of harm caused by negligently handling a firearm. Common sense dictates that the ultimate cause is, the person who negligently handled the firearm, but our legal system looks for deep pockets so victims can be adequately compensated. I attended a manufacturing defect legal seminar about 20 years ago, and was shocked to learn that manufacturers have to design their products with the anticipation of foreseeable misuse. In this situation I am speculating that this would include lack of proper cleaning and maintenance, using inappropriate cleaning solvents or oils, and incorrectly adjusting the trigger. This standard makes it almost impossible for a manufacturer of a firearm to escape liability when one of its products is involved in harmful act. Our society is holding manufacturers to unrealistic standards, and hence that is why the cost of firearms has so greatly increased. Our courts are imposing a wealth distribution scheme on society.
I am a litigation attorney, and the standards needed to impose liability in a court are significantly higher than the uncontested work product that CNBC broadcasted about Remington 700 rifles. CNBC’s broadcast was crafted to present the viewer with only one conclusion; that the rifle is unsafe. CNBC is known to have an anti-gun bias and I suspect their market has more anti-gun viewers than gun owners. Thankfully Remington produced a response to the CNBC hit piece and posted it on YouTube so everyone can view it.
Lets hypothetically assume that Remington 700 rifles have a design flaw that causes negligent/accidental discharges. The user of the firearm is ultimately responsible for how the firearm is used and for any type of harm caused by negligently handling a firearm. Common sense dictates that the ultimate cause is, the person who negligently handled the firearm, but our legal system looks for deep pockets so victims can be adequately compensated. I attended a manufacturing defect legal seminar about 20 years ago, and was shocked to learn that manufacturers have to design their products with the anticipation of foreseeable misuse. In this situation I am speculating that this would include lack of proper cleaning and maintenance, using inappropriate cleaning solvents or oils, and incorrectly adjusting the trigger. This standard makes it almost impossible for a manufacturer of a firearm to escape liability when one of its products is involved in harmful act. Our society is holding manufacturers to unrealistic standards, and hence that is why the cost of firearms has so greatly increased. Our courts are imposing a wealth distribution scheme on society.
How dare they serve HOT coffee??? I think I will sue my parents as I am sure its there fault I can't quit spending money on guns 
