The proper venue for proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt is in court, not on television. It's not like I've never watched TV before; I don't watch it because I'm quite familiar with what's on it (though I admit, I do occasionally pick up a series on DVD). I've never seen any television program even come close to answering the most obvious questions on a subject, much less prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt --including programs in less politicized venues.austinrealtor wrote:But at the end of the day, if - proven beyond a reasonable doubt - a bolt-action rifle often or regularly can be made to fire a bullet by simply disengaging the safety or by lightly tapping the bolt handle as the law enforcement sniper shows in one of the videos, then all motivations (political or otherwise) of the people bringing such problems to light are immaterial. That product - that firearm - is inherently unsafe and MUST be fixed regardless of price or consequences. If fixing or replacing all those 5 million Rem 700s puts Remington out of business - so be it. If the company knew about the problem for 60 years and ignored it, they DESERVE to go out of business. If they truly didn't realize the extent of the problem and are just now realizing how bad it is, then that's just bad business and the basic tenants of capitalism say they must suffer the consequences and go out of business. .
Let's look at your perspective on this from another angle. Let's say they're not going to distort reality in their presentation (which, btw, I don't believe for a second and am merely proposing for the sake of argument), everything they present is true, they present the whole truth in a way that allows viewers to draw a well founded conclusion, and that conclusion is that these rifles really are inherently dangerous. We're back to my question about CNBC: are they presenting programs, like, for instance, how citizens have saved innocent lives using firearms? If not, then I suggest your contention that their motivation is irrelevant is false. If they only put on programs like this then even if every single one of them is entirely true, the perception they create about firearm ownership is entirely negative and false, and therefore constitutes deliberate lying and deception.
And that is why I have the attitude I do: I see the big lie. I don't particularly care if this one program is accurate or not, because in the larger scheme, it still amounts to a lie, and it still serves the anti-gun agenda. This might be different if the MSM was not unilaterally anti-gun. If, for instance, they were neutral on the subject, or, some were anti-gun and some pro-gun. But none of the MSM is pro-gun or pro-2nd Amendment.
EDIT ADDITION
BTW, what little research I did on this at gun sites, where people share your safety concerns, and unlike the MSM, actually know something about guns, tells me that the CNBC program is a hit piece that exaggerates a problem caused by user modifications, or as TAM says --a non-issue. And I've had a Remington 700 since high school, and never had a problem with it, so I have reason to be concerned and experience with this particular rifle.
Edit to My Edit
Consider also the audience for this --it isn't Remington 700 owners or gun owners in general. Do gun owners look in the MSM for critical info about guns they own or plan to buy? We come to forums like this one to get answers from people who are knowledgeable about guns. In fact, I highly doubt they care how gun owners perceive this hit piece; their audience is an uninformed and impressionable public. They want to reinforce the anti-gun biases of their audience and push anyone who is undecided into the anti-gun camp --they know they're not going to convince anyone who is pro gun rights. They HATE us.
I can't emphasize this enough: the MSM and the anti-gun people HATE us. Some of them, maybe even a majority of them, believe we're crazy and want to see us dead or in prison. For example, just consider the kinds of remarks being made by the anti-gun crowd in conjunction with the concealed carry ban at the NRA convention. Many of them, stewed in their ignorance, relished the notion of gun owners shooting each other at the NRA convention --they actually believe CHL holders can't be together in a crowd without shooting each other, and they anticipated such an outcome with pure glee. Some of these people have warmer feelings for actual predatory criminals than they do for law abiding gun owners.