Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims

[dannyb278]

What are some things that would’ve stopped Sandy Hook?

About the only thing that I can come up with is her son and should’ve been institutionalized (mental hospital) for his entire life but we both know that never would’ve happened.
Do you think a safekeeping law would’ve prevented it? I doubt it. After Adam smoke checked his mom while she slept he had all the time in the world to get into a safe.
Mandatory gun locks? Same as above.
Everybody has to turn in their AR’s? What good would that do? Let’s not forget Virginia Tech was completed with 2 Glocks.

I really don't know and am not claiming to have an answer. Based on my high school grades, I am expecting and hoping there is someone out there smarter than me that will come up with some ideas. But the rest of us knobs have to be supportive of it, or even good ideas will go nowhere.

 

[Rhcuam]

I really don't know and am not claiming to have an answer. Judging by my high school grades though, I am expecting and hoping someone smarter than me to come up with some ideas.

I hear you there.
Not directed at you but a large portion of the population automatically just want to yell from the rooftops to ban guns, or ban certain type of guns when in reality it would make a little to no difference.

 

[dannyb278]

I hear you there.
Not directed at you but a large portion of the population automatically just want to yell from the rooftops to ban guns, or ban certain type of guns when in reality it would make a little to no difference.

For sure. I in no way want to see firearms banned and am more than willing to accept that there are already far to many failed gun laws on the books. But that in no way means there isn't room for gun owners to look for solutions rather than bury our heads in the sand and let someone else do the work for us, to our detriment.

 

[LWC55]

I hear you there.
Not directed at you but a large portion of the population automatically just want to yell from the rooftops to ban guns, or ban certain type of guns when in reality it would make a little to no difference.

I'd like to hear some of these solutions that folks have to these problems. I personally don't think more laws or restrictions are the answer.

 

[406dn]

I'd like to hear some of these solutions that folks have to these problems. I personally don't think more laws or restrictions are the answer.

It will be something. Maybe for a while more large awards to plaintiffs.

 

[Sytes]

For sure. I in no way want to see firearms banned and am more than willing to accept that there are already far to many failed gun laws on the books. But that in no way means there isn't room for gun owners to look for solutions rather than bury our heads in the sand and let someone else do the work for us, to our detriment.

@dannyb278 good earlier post and then the quoted post that inspires thought vs fight.

NRA supported numerous gun laws to assist settings such as Florida, etc. Example: Supported legislation to permit law abiding school instructors to carry.
BUT that's not the Democrat view of working gun law settings, thus make both look evil and go nowhere.

Oops... did I say Democrat? Hang in there fellow Democrat HT'ers.. I'm not after your scalp though Democrats are the opposing push against our 2A. And yes, Republicans want to remove all federal lands... Thus my thoughts on this silly lawsuit based on emotional banter targeting big $. Can't really gain big bucks from the person whom lawfully owned the gun. Can't stand on the soapbox and proclaim some form of victory...

This is my opinion:

This is not a gun issue at all. This is the common theme of political extremes.
It has increased drastically over the decades... Take for instance:

The NRA worked with Franklin Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act. These are the first federal gun control laws created.

Now? It's reached extremes on both sides. Any hot topic and neither party will budge.

Public Land
Conservation
Welfare
Education
Second Amendment
First Amendment

The vocal extremists run our country. There is no sincere compromise, the middle ground people who vote for the best (of crap choices), be it Democrat or Republican are vilified as that vote needs to be with one and only one party.

So to you trench digging Liberals and Conservatives, YOU are the problem, in my humble opinion.

Regardless the topic that holds differing opinions, if one party takes a stand, the topic is not relevant. The political power @#)(# measuring position pushers are the true singular problem.

Political football <insert hot topic>.

 

[MTGunner]

Winmag said it. The settlement opens up a can of worms. This allows ANY victim to sue the defendant, the manufacturer et al. Whether it be a firearm, soup can, automobile and on and on. Our litigious society is looking for the something for nothing. Not saying this is always the case. But, seems so. MTG

 

[406dn]

Winmag said it. The settlement opens up a can of worms. This allows ANY victim to sue the defendant, the manufacturer et al. Whether it be a firearm, soup can, automobile and on and on. Our litigious society is looking for the something for nothing. Not saying this is always the case. But, seems so. MTG

So losing a child at school is nothing? I didn't know.

 

[mtmuley]

So losing a child at school is nothing? I didn't know.

I doubt that was his point. mtmuley

 

[Farmerj]

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.

Not only did he steal it from her first, he then used the pistol to murder her before leaving the house.

Couple friends live around sandy hook. Talk about a topic you don’t bring up.

 

[MTGunner]

406dn, loosing a child is the worst case scenario. Do NOT assume that is what I meant. I know first hand the pain of loosing a child. My heart goes out to the parents of Sandy Hook. There is no pain to compare to that of loosing a child. My opinion regarding our litigious society is what I was referring to. MTG

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They didn’t cut their losses, I don’t know what you don’t understand. This has all been tried before and they (gun manufacturers) were found they can’t be held liable for how someone uses the product. It could’ve paid out zero dollars and instead pay out 75 million. Again they didn’t cut their losses. They found a way to lose

It's the suit about advertising? My understanding of situation, and again understanding of the facts not to be construed with my opinion on how our things should work, is that they were sued on the grounds that Remington's advertising of the bushmaster was attempting to make it 'tactic-cool' (paraphrase obviously), similar to how big tobacco marketed to kids with their Joe-Cool adds. The successful argument being that tobacco used marketing strategies that targeted and/or kids were very susceptible to their messaging of a dangerous product.

Opinion here: I think the lawyers in this case saw that given the facts, which can include variables other than win/losing the case, insolvency of your client potentially? I DK, that it was cheaper to settle. Does this open a can of worms for litigation, I don't know, but what does a protracted legal case do? How long and arduous was the big tobacco suit.

Opinion again: I find the marketing problematic, I do find it irresponsible to market firearms in this manner. IMHO I think an actual middle ground here (and this bridges over to the busse thread) is for the firearms industry to agree to stop "making guns sexy/ tacticool whatever" also everyone knows what I mean and are just playing dumb if you say otherwise, there are 50+ threads making fun of 'tactical chad' so can it, and in return the other side of the aisle on the issue pumps the breaks on more legislation. I have no illusions that either side will be wiling to make this compromise.




Last point, I'm really really rolling my eyes at the 'marketing doesn't matter' comments... fine, no bitching about social media blowing up hunting, posts you don't like, too many people camping, things being crowded, basically 50% of the off season forum threads.

So what marketing is super important and has negative effects in every arena except guns? Come on.

 

[LWC55]

It's the suit about advertising? My understanding of situation, and again understanding of the facts not to be construed with my opinion on how our things should work, is that they were sued on the grounds that Remington's advertising of the bushmaster was attempting to make it 'tactic-cool' (paraphrase obviously), similar to how big tobacco marketed to kids with their Joe-Cool adds. The successful argument being that tobacco used marketing strategies that targeted and/or kids were very susceptible to their messaging of a dangerous product.

Opinion here: I think the lawyers in this case saw that given the facts, which can include variables other than win/losing the case, insolvency of your client potentially? I DK, that it was cheaper to settle. Does this open a can of worms for litigation, I don't know, but what does a protracted legal case do? How long and arduous was the big tobacco suit.

Opinion again: I find the marketing problematic, I do find it irresponsible to market firearms in this manner. IMHO I think an actual middle ground here (and this bridges over to the busse thread) is for the firearms industry to agree to stop "making guns sexy/ tacticool whatever" also everyone knows what I mean and are just playing dumb if you say otherwise, there are 50+ threads making fun of 'tactical chad' so can it, and in return the other side of the aisle on the issue pumps the breaks on more legislation. I have no illusions that either side will be wiling to make this compromise.

View attachment 212630View attachment 212631


Last point, I'm really really rolling my eyes at the 'marketing doesn't matter' comments... fine, no bitching about social media blowing up hunting, posts you don't like, too many people camping, things being crowded, basically 50% of the off season forum threads.

So what marketing is super important and has negative effects in every arena except guns? Come on.

I don't see how the HUGE stretch is made between legal advertising and doing something illegal with said product...and then blaming the manufacturer. If Ford Escape advertised "consider your man card reissued" and Darrell Brooks had then obtained the Ford Escape and plowed into a Waukesha Christmas Parade and killed 6 people and injured 62 others......would you be calling for Ford to make their vehicles less sexy? Advertising is literally making things sexy. Always has been and always will be and it works.
Now if a company is found to be advertising something illegal or the like (advertising tobacco to kids) or advertising specifically to the mentally deranged...or something of that order. I could see them being held accountable. Otherwise it is too far of a stretch in my opinion...which isn't worth a lot.

 

[glassy]

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.

Well stated @Rhcuam. I'm not saying I agree with the Remington settlement necessarily. I guess what I am saying is that I think we'd go a lot farther as a hunting community by showing a little empathy for the families of the victims of Sandy Hook as opposed to the response that I saw from staunch second amendment supporters (i.e. "it was a hoax, it didn't happen", etc.). A lot of the responses posted here are, to me, in that same vein.

 

[glassy]

You are

@nick87 Could be, but a post like @Rhcuam's goes a lot farther at describing his perspective. You should try it sometime.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't see how the HUGE stretch is made between legal advertising and doing something illegal with said product...and then blaming the manufacturer. If Ford Escape advertised "consider your man card reissued" and Darrell Brooks had then obtained the Ford Escape and plowed into a Waukesha Christmas Parade and killed 6 people and injured 62 others......would you be calling for Ford to make their vehicles less sexy? Advertising is literally making things sexy. Always has been and always will be and it works.
Now if a company is found to be advertising something illegal or the like (advertising tobacco to kids) or advertising specifically to the mentally deranged...or something of that order. I could see them being held accountable. Otherwise it is too far of a stretch in my opinion...which isn't worth a lot.

Not quite apples to apples. If Ford produced a commercial with the slogan “Ford our cars are so fast the police can’t catch you” then had an add campaign with high speed chases, and then people died in high speed chases driving fords, I would say yeah that seems like grounds for a case.

For clarification I’m not saying I’m decided, but I think there is enough merit, that I personal would hear the case, listen to more arguments and then make a decision.

If the add was some guy hunting coyotes with an AR I would say no merit.

 

[glassy]

Exactly. I sometimes even hunt with one of these scary black guns, the horror!

The horror isn't in hunting with the black guns...it's when 6 year olds get sawed in half by them. The hunting community would get a lot farther with the public by showing some empathy to the families of the victims of Sandy Hook rather than entrenching the "over my dead body" rhetoric.

I use guns to hunt too, but don't feel the need to carry around a damn-near-automatic tactical weapon with bump stocks and the like. A bolt action .270 or pump 12 ga. isn't ever going to get banned.

 

[Nick87]

Well stated @Rhcuam. I'm not saying I agree with the Remington settlement necessarily. I guess what I am saying is that I think we'd go a lot farther as a hunting community by showing a little empathy for the families of the victims of Sandy Hook as opposed to the response that I saw from staunch second amendment supporters (i.e. "it was a hoax, it didn't happen", etc.). A lot of the responses posted here are, to me, in that same vein.

There wasn't a single person on here posted anything anywhere remotely suggesting anything along those lines or anywhere in that same "vein". As far as describing my perspective I don't need to go into detail to point out your talking out of your ass.

 

[Irrelevant]

Once again tons of speculation. No one has any idea what all the internal documents say. The insurers could have easily looked at a handful of emails between marketing execs and thought.... SETTLE!

If anything I think keeping this out of the mainstream media for the many years that an actual trial/appeals would take is more beneficial.

 

[KB_]

A few things, first it would be your family...you'd be dead.

Then it couldn't be an accident.

Then you need to prove that Honda willfully marketed the car to a certain demographic group.

Good Luck

Fast an the furious sir.... paul walker better.... never mind