Gun Control Reform Activism

billh58

(6,635 posts) Wed Sep 7, 2016, 09:47 AM Sep 2016

A new legal assault on firearm makers: Some guns may be dangerous

Trouble is brewing in New England for gun manufacturers. The Massachusetts attorney general has launched an innovative investigation of major firearm makers based on her state’s expansive consumer-protection law.

The probe targets at least two companies—Glock Inc. and Remington Outdoor Co.—and possibly others. The investigation came to light because of lawsuits the gun companies recently filed seeking to block or narrow the Massachusetts safety investigation, calling it overly intrusive. The defensive litigation stated that Attorney General Maura Healey is demanding that Glock and Remington surrender a wide range of internal documents, including safety-related complaints from customers.

- Snip -

Since the Glock was introduced in America 30 years ago, critics have said its design makes it more likely than other handguns to fire accidentally. For example, the Austrian gun fires with relatively little pressure from the shooter’s index finger, and it has an unconventional safety mechanism built into its trigger, which some detractors say is ineffective. The company has responded that with proper training and careful technique, users will avoid accidental discharges.

Remington has had safety issues of its own. The company recently recalled two lines of rifles manufactured from 2006 through early 2014 because of accidental discharges. The recall notice stated to owners that “any unintended discharge has the potential for causing injury or death. Immediately stop using your rifle until Remington can inspect it to determine if the XMP trigger has excess bonding agent used in the assembly process, which could cause an unintentional discharge.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/a-new-legal-assault-on-firearm-makers-some-guns-may-be-dangerous/ar-AAizR0Y?li=BBnbfcL

Guns, it's worth noting, are one of the only products not regulated by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"with proper training and careful technique, users will avoid accidental discharges"...? Who is responsible for providing this "proper training?" And what in the hell is "careful technique?"

Bottom line? ALL guns are dangerous, and in the hands of inexperienced, untrained, average citizens they remain dangerous, yet almost anyone can buy and use a gun with little or no training. These same untrained gun owners are also "responsible" for leaving guns unsecured where 1.6 million children can (and do) pick them up and play with them with tragic results.

Vote for a Democrat who will stand up to the right-wing gun lobby, and help stop the gun violence madness in this country.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A new legal assault on firearm makers: Some guns may be dangerous (Original Post) billh58 Sep 2016 OP

The 'proper training' issue is the gist of the suit brought by the Sandy Hook families flamin lib Sep 2016 #1

I have information from billh58 Sep 2016 #2

One of these days I'd like to make my own little event. Jerry442 Sep 2016 #3

The major difference being billh58 Sep 2016 #4

Point taken, although maybe the axe, with a really good arm... NT Jerry442 Sep 2016 #5

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)

1. The 'proper training' issue is the gist of the suit brought by the Sandy Hook families

Reply to billh58 (Original post)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:06 AM

Sep 2016

against Bushmaster. The suit claims that the AR-15 used to kill 26 children and teachers is of military design intended for use by the armed forces and police who have specialized training in the use and care of the weapon but marketed to the general public without that necessary training. Bushmaster, like Remington and Glock are refusing to turn over marketing records on the grounds that it will give unfair advantage to competitors. So far the judge has refused to allow them to conceal their marketing materials.

The basis of the suit is 'negligent entrustment' in that the weapon was transferred to untrained citizens and the manufacturer and sales outlet were therefore negligent in doing so. It's the only basis for a suit under the PLCAA other than a grossly defective product which is what the MA AG is using in her suit. Glock has maintained that their pistols 'perform as designed' and are therefore not defective. See? They are designed to shoot the user in the leg . . .

billh58

(6,635 posts)

2. I have information from

Reply to flamin lib (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:42 AM

Sep 2016

the highest Internet sources that says in the hands of a "good guy" guns are beautifully and wondrously safe, and could not possibly cause unintended harm to any living thing, under any circumstances.

I am assured that we have absolutely nothing to fear from Bubba Sixpack when he shows up at Walmart with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder, and a Glock dangling from his belt. In fact we should be thankful that this "good guy" is exercising his Second Amendment right to defend himself, and maybe us in the process.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)

3. One of these days I'd like to make my own little event.

Reply to billh58 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

Sep 2016

I'd get a group of friends and we'd go to some public place and hang out, openly carrying the following totally legal and commonly available items:

1. Baseball bat.
2. Sledgehammer.
3. Scythe.
4. Jug of muriatic acid.
5. Chainsaw.
6. Can of gasoline.
7. Log chain.
8. Axe.
9. Propane torch.
10. Cattle prod.
11. Length of steel pipe.
12. Tire iron.

When asked to disperse, we'd point out that the gun people can carry their legal items around without being harassed. We should be able to also.

billh58

(6,635 posts)

4. The major difference being

Reply to Jerry442 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

Sep 2016

that none of these items can kill a person from 50 feet away.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)

5. Point taken, although maybe the axe, with a really good arm... NT

Reply to billh58 (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:54 AM

Sep 2016

Reply to this discussion