Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Remington Settles for $73 million

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY

    Remington Settles for $73 million

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/n...ettlement.html

    Families of people killed in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., said on Tuesday that they had reached a $73 million settlement in their lawsuit against the maker of the AR-15-style weapon the gunman used in the attack.

    The agreement, reached with the families of five children and four adults who were killed, appears to be the largest such settlement involving a gun maker and relatives of mass shooting victims.

    It also represents a significant setback to the firearm industry because the lawsuit, by employing a novel strategy, pierced the vast shield enshrined in federal law protecting gun companies from litigation.

    The families contended that Remington, the gun maker, violated state consumer law by promoting the weapon in a way that appealed to so-called couch commandoes and troubled young men like the gunman who stormed into the elementary school on Dec. 14, 2012, killing 20 first graders and six adults in a spray of gunfire
    This won't be the first and ad copy better change if it pushes such ideation, it would seem. Remington has to document its ad strategy.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    So now are car companies who have cars jumping stuff and driving recklessly in their TV ads going to be able to be sued for marketing cars to people who are likely to get into accidents because they wanted to drive like the drivers in the commercials? This as a legal precedent has some potentially dire consequences for a lot of different businesses.

  3. #3
    In Lead... RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere Salishious
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Harris View Post
    So now are car companies who have cars jumping stuff and driving recklessly in their TV ads going to be able to be sued for marketing cars to people who are likely to get into accidents because they wanted to drive like the drivers in the commercials? This as a legal precedent has some potentially dire consequences for a lot of different businesses.
    Why do you think the car ads have fine print at the bottom that says, "Professional Driver on a Closed Course, Do Not Attempt."
    Quote Originally Posted by Maple Syrup Actual
    Be numb to the idiocy. It is too prevalent to defeat.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    I know but does anyone really think that a gun company intentionally markets their products to mass killers? Just like a car company does not intentionally market their cars to people who will drive dangerously on the highway. This just sets a bad precedent.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Harris View Post
    So now are car companies who have cars jumping stuff and driving recklessly in their TV ads going to be able to be sued for marketing cars to people who are likely to get into accidents because they wanted to drive like the drivers in the commercials? This as a legal precedent has some potentially dire consequences for a lot of different businesses.

    No...because politicians and their families drive cars and they don't want the prices to rise or manufacturers to go out of business, and they need you to be able to commute to work in order to earn a paycheck to tax.

    Firearms on the other hand...make it prohibitively expensive for manufacturers to stay in business, and you've effectively created a ban without the unpleasantness and political blow-back of voting on one.

  6. #6
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    The argument would be that cars might be advertised to drive fast and recklessly but that is different from advertising to use the rifle as a weapon and deal out lethal arm. So it is a matter of degree of behavior priming. Priming reckless driving which has an indirect message of damage vs. a direct message of lethal damage. That's what's being said.

    The research link would be that guns actually prime aggression. Now that literature is controversial as to whether the effects are real, if real in the lab transfer to the real world. Quite the debate. The meta analyses are mixed.

    I might expect a lawsuit against video games, if shown to be played by a killer might be subject to the same sort of suit. Now the motivation for that would be money and not have the strong political gun control message.

    Criminological analyses show that the rampage types study guns and ammo to determine usage and lethality. Does that study prime them to act? See similar arguments on pornography - does it prime sex crimes? Debated. The vast majority of people observe porn and are not sex criminals but some are. However, pornography is now constitutionally protected. Not that folks don't want to break that.

    I note that the NRA tried to blame video games at one time but the problem with that is the research base that games primed aggression is the same research base that said guns themselves prime aggression. The video game literature is controversial also.

    In any case, the car argument lacks sophistication as an easy one to counter the claim. It's a variant of the gun is a tool argument which doesn't take into effect concept formation theory about core usages of an item.

    Last, if you argue that cars might limited because of their performance, how does not argue for a limit on gun performance supporting AWBs and mag bans. Cars aren't constitutional protected, guns supposedly are - depending on the vagaries of the SCOTUS.

    So that's a deeper dive.

  7. #7
    Car companies pay both sides of the isle.

    Gun companies not so much.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Republic of Texas (Dallas)
    I have apparently read my allotment of free New York Times articles because I can't get to this one without signing up. Nevertheless, Remington getting squeamish and settling a case that should be covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) seems to be a huge setback for gun manufacturers and the alleged protections the PLCAA was supposed to provide.

    It would be nice to hear from @joshs on this one.
    "Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark

  9. #9
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Is that thunder? No, just Fort Hood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    I have apparently read my allotment of free New York Times articles because I can't get to this one without signing up. Nevertheless, Remington getting squeamish and settling a case that should be covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) seems to be a huge setback for gun manufacturers and the alleged protections the PLCAA was supposed to provide.

    It would be nice to hear from @joshs on this one.
    Was it Remington, or their insurer? I’m hoping more will come out about this.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    Was it Remington, or their insurer? I’m hoping more will come out about this.
    Their insurer(s). The suit was against Remington Outdoor Company, which no longer exists. That company's insurers decided to settle the claims rather than proceed with the case.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •