Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims
- Thread starter LWC55
- Start date
Farmerj
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2021
- Messages
- 1,072
All for a weapon that never saw the situation or daylight until after it was all over.
Nick87
Well-known member
What was there advertising exactly?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
There isn’t a specific add, I think it’s more in aggregate, but example. @Ben Lamb posted a bunch of them at one point.
Nick87
Well-known member
Trying to find the advertisement where the connection was made I guess.
Same here. Especially since the shooter was not the purchaser of the gun. Didn't the shooter steal the gun from his mother who was the purchaser? Seems like a giant leap to connect this shooting to Remington's advertising.
Terrible precedence to see. I understand it was Remington‘s insurance companies that paid out, not Remington, but still not a good look, and yes the shooter took the rifle after shooting his mom in the face with a .22 4 times while she slept.
Are you trying to state that somehow this ad is going to inspire people to go shoot a room of kindergarteners because I’m just not seeing how you’re taking that leap
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but this is Hunt Talk. I am don't at all see the relevancy between the Sandy Hook case and hunting or the hunting community. I've never understood why most hunters focus solely on these issues instead of looking into others that might actually affect their hunting (e.g. like public lands issues).
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Yes I believe this is indicative of the type of advertising the suit was about.
Because I use a firearm to hunt, that firearm is protected by the second amendment. So I care about second amendment issues as well. I suppose if you only bow hunt you have nothing to worry about.
Furthermore, if insurance companies start making it difficult for firearms manufacturers to get insurance due to them them paying out 75-$100 million every time somebody uses one of their firearms in a drive-by or some mentally ill individual shoots up a place of business, house of worship, or school that could affect quite a few things.
I will use Chicago as an example, over this last weekend nine people were shot and three were killed. Now if each one of those individuals or surviving family members sues the firearm manufacturer who’s gun was used in that crime. And then get paid out a 3.1 million Settlement that was going to be in a very expensive weekend.
Last edited:
nettereo16
Well-known member
Exactly. I sometimes even hunt with one of these scary black guns, the horror!
Nick87
Well-known member
You are
To me it's sort of like when the lady sued McDonald's after she burned herself with a hot coffee, and then the lawyers finding a billboard from McDonald's that says something like "We have the hottest coffee around" and then considering that damning evidence that McDonald's is out to scald people.
But maybe that's just me
But maybe that's just me
Again I’ll use Chicago for this example there was 1,002 gun related homicides last year (21) now if insurance companies having to start to pay out 2-3 million per gun homicide how long do you think before the insurance carriers say enough is enough you guys are on your own.
Disclaimer!!!!
My math is very rough I just took 75 million divided by the 26 victims I’m not accounting for those injured at Sandy Hook.
Disclaimer!!!!
My math is very rough I just took 75 million divided by the 26 victims I’m not accounting for those injured at Sandy Hook.
lastlight
Well-known member
You’d think those parents/lawyers would utilize their time and resources to campaign for mental health awareness. His parents ignored his issues for years. But by all means, blame the tool. More kids are going to die from mass shootings because our society does jack shit about the root of the problem.
Nick87
Well-known member
Remington wasn't at fault just like that money isn't going to replace those families loved ones. Just an opportunity for lawyers to steal a piece of pie. Remington was a victim of the system and those families are a victim to mental illness. The lawyers walked away pockets full smiling.
Nick87
Well-known member
Couldn't agree more.
westbranch
Well-known member
A lot of the media around that case was pushed by large corporations making it seem like a frivolous lawsuit. Turns out there was a bit more to that case.
Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case - Public Citizen
In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and...
www.citizen.org
Similar threads
- Deleted member 52098
- Live Hunts
