Sandy Hook families announce settlement with Remington Arms, marking first time a gunmaker is held liable for a U.S. mass shooting

[sober_teacher]

No it's really not. It's most certainly a legit point as I've actually witnessed it happen.

as I mentioned before tho, there’s only so far gun control laws can really go, especially with an SC conservative bent that will be in place for decades.

Do those guns help keep a potential tyrannical government in check?

This is another argument I think is disingenuous. 100 years ago you could sell me on on it. Now? With tanks, drones, cruise missiles, bombers etc., if we ever got to the point where the military was sent to suppress a segment of the population, they’re doomed.

 

[TJ8869]

Evidence presented for christ's sake.

The person who posted it didn’t specify who created the graphic, so I asked for clarification. It could have been created by anyone, like for example a distributor for christ’s sake.

But thank you for your contribution a day later. You’ve been very helpful.

 

[fredjr82]

I'm asking you which "big cities" were you referencing that have the huge gun problems in those states?

Places like:
Chicago, Alabama
New York, Mississippi
Atlanta, Montana
Los Angeles, South Carolina

 

[fredjr82]

Evidence presented for christ's sake.

@dgordo almost had him stopped in his tracks at that point. Then the @TJ8869 lightbulb went on and he wondered if the graphic had Adam Lanza's name on it? What if the graphic was used AFTER Adam's mom bought the gun? Things the Remington lawyer's never even thought of!!

 

[TJ8869]

I still don’t quite understand why Remington is financially liable to the the tune of $73 million in compensatory damages. If they broke Connecticut’s laws regarding marketing then there should be a specified penalty for breaking those laws and they should pay that penalty to the state of Connecticut.

Their marketing didn’t cause Adam Lanza to murder 26 people. They manufactured a gun legally and one of their distributors sold it legally to Lanza’s mother. She illegally gave it to her son, who was known to be mentally unstable, and he illegally used it to kill 26 people.

The two people who are responsible for those murders are both dead and have no money. But Remington has deep pockets, so let’s go after them, I guess. This lawsuit smacks of “We hate the gun companies, so let’s try to hurt them in any way we can, even if it doesn’t make sense.”

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Give some examples.

California, circa 2017-18. The lawmakers were attacking their vaccine exemption laws and stated that if they would just pass the current, less stringent bill, they assured the voters they would leave medical exemptions alone and make sure to preserve the medical exemptions as they were written, leaving it up to the patient's doctors. About a year or so later from stating those words, they passed a bill that all but eliminated doctor written vaccine exemptions and put the State in control of virtually all medical exemptions.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

No. Not. At. All.

Change my mind.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

I still don’t quite understand why Remington is financially liable to the the tune of $73 million in compensatory damages. If they broke Connecticut’s laws regarding marketing then there should be a specified penalty for breaking those laws and they should pay that penalty to the state of Connecticut.

Their marketing didn’t cause Adam Lanza to murder 26 people. They manufactured a gun legally and one of their distributors sold it legally to Lanza’s mother. She illegally gave it to her son, who was known to be mentally unstable, and he illegally used it to kill 26 people.

The two people who are responsible for those murders are both dead and have no money. But Remington has deep pockets, so let’s go after them, I guess. This lawsuit smacks of “We hate the gun companies, so let’s try to hurt them in any way we can, even if it doesn’t make sense."

Looks like we have another poster who knows more about the case than Remington's attorneys. They could have saved a lot of cash by hiring @TJ8869 and @Whiskeydeltadeltatango.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

This is another argument I think is disingenuous. 100 years ago you could sell me on on it. Now? With tanks, drones, cruise missiles, bombers etc., if we ever got to the point where the military was sent to suppress a segment of the population, they’re doomed.

Sorry, but I can't buy the notion that an unarmed population = an armed population in the eye of a tyrannical government.

 

[RileyHawk]

California, circa 2017-18. The lawmakers were attacking their vaccine exemption laws and stated that if they would just pass the current, less stringent bill, they assured the voters they would leave medical exemptions alone and make sure to preserve the medical exemptions as they were written, leaving it up to the patient's doctors. About a year or so later from stating those words, they passed a bill that all but eliminated doctor written vaccine exemptions and put the State in control of virtually all medical exemptions.

Link to this nothingburger?

 

[RileyHawk]

Change my mind.

You don't believe that I don't believe the guns in the general populace keep tyranny at bay? That's stupid.

Change your mind? BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA. No amount of logic or fact will do that. I will offer the simple premise of your semi-automatic assault rifle against a tank.

You're continuing to get more absurd as we go along.

 

[dgordo]

I still don’t quite understand why Remington is financially liable to the the tune of $73 million in compensatory damages. If they broke Connecticut’s laws regarding marketing then there should be a specified penalty for breaking those laws and they should pay that penalty to the state of Connecticut.

Their marketing didn’t cause Adam Lanza to murder 26 people. They manufactured a gun legally and one of their distributors sold it legally to Lanza’s mother. She illegally gave it to her son, who was known to be mentally unstable, and he illegally used it to kill 26 people.

The two people who are responsible for those murders are both dead and have no money. But Remington has deep pockets, so let’s go after them, I guess. This lawsuit smacks of “We hate the gun companies, so let’s try to hurt them in any way we can, even if it doesn’t make sense.”

the law creates a civil action enforceable by any harmed party.

id be happy to post the decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court if you want.

 

[TJ8869]

the law creates a civil action enforceable by any harmed party.

id be happy to post the decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court if you want.

I’d like to read that. Thank you. Based on the limited information that has been provided in this thread, anyone who has ever been shot by a Remington firearm purchased in Connecticut since that law is entitled to millions of dollars in conpensation.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I’d like to read that. Thank you. Based on the limited information that has been provided in this thread, anyone who has ever been shot by a Remington firearm purchased in Connecticut since that law is entitled to millions of dollars in conpensation.

Do you have to be shot in Connecticut too or just that the gun was purchased in Connecticut?

 

[sober_teacher]

Sorry, but I can't buy the notion that an unarmed population = an armed population in the eye of a tyrannical government.

Not what I said. But unless your going to supply civilians with the same military capabilities as the armed forces, the combat capabilities arent even comparable. Only way that part of the equation is if some portion of the military sides with the civilians, in which case, say hello civil war 2.

just saying that the part of the “we have to defend ourselves against the tyrannical government“ argument that drives me nuts is that it completely ignores how military tech has evolved in the 20th century. 100 years ago this would hold more water with me, as most military weapons were not that far from what was in common civilian use.

this part of the 2nd amendment is what kills me about strict constitutionalists. In 1789, the best rifle was capable of firing 3 aimed shots across the length of a football field in a minute with some measure of accuracy. Artillery was considered accurate if it could hit the broadside of a barn. The idea that you could fire and hit something you couldn’t see with the naked eye would have been inconceivable. The Founding Fathers intended the federal government would maintain a small, professional army, supported by a “well-regulated militia” in times of war. And a young nation was bordered by dozens of hostile Native American tribes, hostile European nations, etc. None of which is true today.

I don’t disagree with the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. But conservatives insist that we MUST adhere to a strict reading of it, when the circumstances and facts surrounding it when it was written are completely different.

 

[TJ8869]

Do you have to be shot in Connecticut too or just that the gun was purchased in Connecticut?

I don’t know. We should just go ahead and award people shot in other states a bunch of money as well, just to be sure. I mean, if we’re going to pass nonsensical laws then let’s not f*ck around with sensible limitations.

 

[dgordo]

I’d like to read that. Thank you. Based on the limited information that has been provided in this thread, anyone who has ever been shot by a Remington firearm purchased in Connecticut since that law is entitled to millions of dollars in conpensation.

Its not any gun, its this exact model because of how it was marketed.

https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

some of the important text:

upon review of the text of § 42-110g (a), the provi-
sion of CUTPA creating a private right of action for persons injured by
unfair trade practices, and its legislative history, and in light of the broad
scope and remedial purpose of CUTPA, this court concluded that CUTPA
authorizes any person who has suffered an ascertainable financial loss
caused by an unfair trade practice to bring an action under CUTPA,
regardless of whether they had a business relationship with the person
or entity that engaged in the prohibited practice.

The defendants could not prevail on their claim that construing a
statute of general applicability such as CUTPA to be a predicate statute
would lead to the absurd result that, if the predicate exception were to
encompass every statute that might be capable of being applied to the
sale or manufacturing of firearms, then virtually any action seeking to
hold firearms manufacturers or sellers liable for third-party gun violence
could proceed; the plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims may proceed
without crippling PLCAA, as those claims allege only that one specific
family of firearms sellers advertised one particular assault weapon in
an uniquely unscrupulous manner, promoting its suitability for illegal,
offensive assaults.

The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory,
however, that is recognized under established Connecti-
cut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants
knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the
XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive,
military style combat missions against their perceived
enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for
that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does
not permit advertisements that promote or encourage
violent, criminal behavior.

 

[TJ8869]

https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

some of the important text:

upon review of the text of § 42-110g (a), the provi-
sion of CUTPA creating a private right of action for persons injured by
unfair trade practices, and its legislative history, and in light of the broad
scope and remedial purpose of CUTPA, this court concluded that CUTPA
authorizes any person who has suffered an ascertainable financial loss
caused by an unfair trade practice to bring an action under CUTPA,
regardless of whether they had a business relationship with the person
or entity that engaged in the prohibited practice.

The defendants could not prevail on their claim that construing a
statute of general applicability such as CUTPA to be a predicate statute
would lead to the absurd result that, if the predicate exception were to
encompass every statute that might be capable of being applied to the
sale or manufacturing of firearms, then virtually any action seeking to
hold firearms manufacturers or sellers liable for third-party gun violence
could proceed; the plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims may proceed
without crippling PLCAA, as those claims allege only that one specific
family of firearms sellers advertised one particular assault weapon in
an uniquely unscrupulous manner, promoting its suitability for illegal,
offensive assaults.

The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory,
however, that is recognized under established Connecti-
cut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants
knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the
XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive,
military style combat missions against their perceived
enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for
that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does
not permit advertisements that promote or encourage
violent, criminal behavior.

That seems like an exceptionally arbitrary application of CUTPA. There was nothing in any of the marketing materials I’ve seen that promoted using an AR-15 to kill innocent schoolchildren. Or to kill anyone, for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of CUTPA is to compensate people and businesses who suffer financial loss as a result of unfair or deceptive business tactics. Remington didn’t trick Adam Lanza into thinking it was okay to shoot up an elementary school.

Again, this seems like an attempt by people who hate gun companies to hurt the gun companies in any way they can, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

 

[Rifler]

Again, this seems like an attempt by people who hate gun companies to hurt the gun companies in any way they can, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

Bingo,.. and Remington fell for it.

 

[RileyHawk]

That seems like an exceptionally arbitrary application of CUTPA. There was nothing in any of the marketing materials I’ve seen that promoted using an AR-15 to kill innocent schoolchildren. Or to kill anyone, for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of CUTPA is to compensate people and businesses who suffer financial loss as a result of unfair or deceptive business tactics. Remington didn’t trick Adam Lanza into thinking it was okay to shoot up an elementary school.

Again, this seems like an attempt by people who hate gun companies to hurt the gun companies in any way they can, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

This is a very myopic view of the situation.

 

[TJ8869]

This is a very myopic view of the situation.

I disagree. Nothing in the marketing materials I’ve seen encouraged violence against innocent people. They simply said that buying a Bushmaster would make him more manly.

Shooting up an elementary school doesn’t make you manly. As Meal Team 6 demonstrated, all you have to do is strap the rifle to a shoulder harness and order a footlong sub to look manly. You can post photos of yourself holding the gun on social media to look manly. Or post videos of yourself firing the gun at your local target range.

Remington didn’t encourage Adam Lanza to kil people. Adam Lanza was a nutjob who had a gun his mother purchased legally but gave to him illegally and decided on his own to kill people.

 

[dgordo]

There was nothing in any of the marketing materials I’ve seen that promoted using an AR-15 to kill innocent schoolchildren.

No court ruled that any of the marketing materials were in violation of the law. The state supreme court ruled that it could be litigated at trial. Remington decided it was better to settle.

 

[notlongago]

Good! The money will never take the place of their children. It is great to have this being the first gun manufacturer to be held liable.

Its a 7 page thread at this point, and im sure it devolved into an absolute shitshow, so im not going to read everything, so apologies, im sure youve answered this but: do you support holding brewers liable? Car MFGs? Wheres the line for you?

 

[TJ8869]

Its a 7 page thread at this point, and im sure it devolved into an absolute shitshow, so im not going to read everything, so apologies, im sure youve answered this but: do you support holding brewers liable? Car MFGs? Wheres the line for you?

Beer makers aren’t liable for drunk driving deaths because they put “Please drink responsibly” in the fine print of their ads.

Maybe Remington should put “Please don’t murder innocent people with our guns” in their literature.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Again, this seems like an attempt by people who hate gun companies to hurt the gun companies in any way they can, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

Yes.

And,

It would seem that with Lambert and his Mom already 6ft under there was still too much injustice left on the table. I get it, as a parent of 3 kids. Someone or something was going to get it, regardless of whether it made sense or not. Remington = the red-headed cousin.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Its a 7 page thread at this point, and im sure it devolved into an absolute shitshow, so im not going to read everything, so apologies, im sure youve answered this but: do you support holding brewers liable? Car MFGs? Wheres the line for you?

LOL I love it. You get a star.

 

[RileyHawk]

I disagree. Nothing in the marketing materials I’ve seen encouraged violence against innocent people. They simply said that buying a Bushmaster would make him more manly.

Shooting up an elementary school doesn’t make you manly. As Meal Team 6 demonstrated, all you have to do is strap the rifle to a shoulder harness and order a footlong sub to look manly. You can post photos of yourself holding the gun on social media to look manly. Or post videos of yourself firing the gun at your local target range.

Remington didn’t encourage Adam Lanza to kil people. Adam Lanza was a nutjob who had a gun his mother purchased legally but gave to him illegally and decided on his own to kill people.

I should have said shortsighted.

 

[RileyHawk]

Its a 7 page thread at this point, and im sure it devolved into an absolute shitshow, so im not going to read everything, so apologies, im sure youve answered this but: do you support holding brewers liable? Car MFGs? Wheres the line for you?

At products designed to kill.

 

[ericram]

Its a 7 page thread at this point, and im sure it devolved into an absolute shitshow, so im not going to read everything, so apologies, im sure youve answered this but: do you support holding brewers liable? Car MFGs? Wheres the line for you?

I am going to let the courts decide that. Though there is a reason that Remington and its insurance company decided to settle for the max of 73 million dollars and agreed to release all the court documents to the public.

 

[notlongago]

At products designed to kill.

They're designed to shoot. A whole lotta shooting happens without intent to kill. Safe to say nearly all shooting is done w/o intent to kill.
But don't let your ignorance get in the way of a fun argument - so have at it.

 

[notlongago]

I am going to let the courts decide that. Though there is a reason that Remington and its insurance company decided to settle for the max of 73 million dollars and agreed to release all the court documents to the public.

Well that's a bit of a copout. I'm asking you, where do you draw the line?
FWIW, "Remington" didn't decide that, Roundhill Group did.

 

[ericram]

Well that's a bit of a copout. I'm asking you, where do you draw the line?
FWIW, "Remington" didn't decide that, Roundhill Group did.

Okay I'll play. Auto companies are held liable if your car crashes and it burst into flames and you die. Breweries, restaurants, bars are all held liable if they over serve somebody they walk out drunk and kill somebody with their vehicle. These are examples that companies are held liable all the time. Toy gun companies have more liability claims then real gun companies at this point. Tell me why gun companies are any different than tobacco companies or any of the other things I just mentioned.

 

[sober_teacher]

Bingo,.. and Remington fell for it.

Well, a lot of high-priced lawyers decided they had at least a decent chance of losing at trial.

They're designed to shoot. A whole lotta shooting happens without intent to kill. Safe to say nearly all shooting is done w/o intent to kill.
But don't let your ignorance get in the way of a fun argument - so have at it.

Ummm, what? A gun is a WEAPON. Weapons are intended to kill or incapacitate another person or creature. Safe to say nearly all hunters are intending to kill their prey. Part of the outrage about cop killings is that they are trained to aim for center of body, which usually results in severe injury or death.

 

[TJ8869]

Auto companies are held liable if your car crashes and it burst into flames and you die.

They are?

 

[RileyHawk]

They're designed to shoot. A whole lotta shooting happens without intent to kill. Safe to say nearly all shooting is done w/o intent to kill.
But don't let your ignorance get in the way of a fun argument - so have at it.

No. Guns were invented to kill.

The "slippery slope" argument is monumentally lazy.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

At products designed to kill.

Alcohol is literally poison.

 

[dgordo]

They are?

only if improperly designed

 

[notlongago]

No. Guns were invented to kill.

The "slippery slope" argument is monumentally lazy.

You're doing that thing you always do where you continually repeat the same incorrect information as if its going to eventually be correct, but, spoiler, its not.
Guns are designed to shoot. If you wanna discuss a design to kill, we should be discussing ammunition, and more specifically, bullet design.
But, like I said, dont let facts get in the way of you having a good time, so what else do you have?

 

[notlongago]

Okay I'll play. Auto companies are held liable if your car crashes and it burst into flames and you die. Breweries, restaurants, bars are all held liable if they over serve somebody they walk out drunk and kill somebody with their vehicle. These are examples that companies are held liable all the time. Toy gun companies have more liability claims then real gun companies at this point. Tell me why gun companies are any different than tobacco companies or any of the other things I just mentioned.

Pretty sure your first point is a lie (or at the very least, very disingenuous). Thats only true if there are manufacturing defects/negligence. Theyre not held responsible for user error.

Your second point, your referring to the distributor, much like if someone knowingly sells a gun to a restricted person they are criminally charged. Again, thats not holding the MFG responsible.

What else you got?

 

[CaboKP]

Slippery slope...

Yeah, not sure where else this could go. The gun is made to shoot a bullet, but requires owner safety and control. Not a gun nut, but I see both sides to the argument. That said, the loss of life is far more important than someone's leisure. So something should change, but I don't know where the line should be drawn.

Is a cell phone manufacturer at fault if someone is texting and driving and causes an accident, or the car manufacturer?