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

[notlongago]

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


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.

Not sure how I couldve been more clear. Guns are designed to shoot. There are many uses for a gun that dont include "kill". Nearly all projectiles fired are not fired with the intent to kill or harm (unless of course you consider paper and steel to be sentient beings).

 

[dgordo]

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?

Although this started as a products liablity case, thats not where it ended. this should really only be discussed in the advertising sense. If a car company made an ad that said buy this car because i can run over a lot of people like a tank that would likely be enough to hold them liable.

If a brewer made an ad that said drink these all night and the bitches will love you that would likely be an issue.

 

[TJ8869]

Guns were invented to kill.

So were knives. So were arrows. So were clubs. Lots of things were invented to kill but have also found other uses.

If guns serve no purpose other than killing then why do >99% of all guns manufactured and sold to civilians never kill anyone? Are they defective or something?

 

[notlongago]

Although this started as a products liablity case, thats not where it ended. this should really only be discussed in the advertising sense. If a car company made an ad that said buy this car because i can run over a lot of people like a tank that would likely be enough to hold them liable.

If a brewer made an ad that said drink these all night and the bitches will love you that would likely be an issue.

Can you show me the ad where it showed someone shooting a bunch of children?
Because there are car ads that depict driving fast and reckless, but theyre not held liable when some moron does it on the highway and crashes. Does "professional driver on closed course" relieve them of liability? Do we really need to ad a disclaimer to guns? "Not to be used for murder"....

 

[TJ8869]

only if improperly designed

Exactly. If a manufacturing defect causes a fatal accident then the manufacturer can be held liable. If a nutjob steers his car into a Christmas parade and tries to kill as many people as he can, that’s not the manufacturer’s fault.

26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary and Nancy Lanza didn’t die because of a defect in Adam Lanza’s gun. They died because he was a nutjob who decided to kill as many people as he could and then off himself.

 

[dgordo]

Can you show me the ad where it showed someone shooting a bunch of children?
Because there are car ads that depict driving fast and reckless, but theyre not held liable when some moron does it on the highway and crashes. Does "professional driver on closed course" relieve them of liability? Do we really need to ad a disclaimer to guns? "Not to be used for murder"....

Like i said, there was never a trial to determine if the ads encouraged killing children.

 

[dgordo]

If a nutjob steers his car into a Christmas parade and tries to kill as many people as he can, that’s not the manufacturer’s fault.

correct, unless the manufacturer encourages illegal behavior.

 

[sober_teacher]

Not sure how I couldve been more clear. Guns are designed to shoot. There are many uses for a gun that dont include "kill". Nearly all projectiles fired are not fired with the intent to kill or harm (unless of course you consider paper and steel to be sentient beings).

Yes, it’s called target practice. So that when you aim a gun at another living creature you have improved your odds of killing someone or thing.

You’re trying to equate what many people will do with guns with what the intended purpose of a gun is. They may get used by people today as practice or stress relief, buts that not what their purpose is.

 

[hawkdave007]

Although this started as a products liablity case, thats not where it ended. this should really only be discussed in the advertising sense. If a car company made an ad that said buy this car because i can run over a lot of people like a tank that would likely be enough to hold them liable.

If a brewer made an ad that said drink these all night and the bitches will love you that would likely be an issue.

NOT TOO FAR OFF!

 

[notlongago]

Yes, it’s called target practice. So that when you aim a gun at another living creature you have improved your odds of killing someone or thing.

You’re trying to equate what many people will do with guns with what the intended purpose of a gun is. They may get used by people today as practice or stress relief, buts that not what their purpose is.

Nope. For the vast majority of gun owners, firing stops at "target practice". They will never, nor have any intention, of aiming at a living being.

The intended purpose is to fire a projectile.

 

[notlongago]

Like i said, there was never a trial to determine if the ads encouraged killing children.

I'm assuming you're at least an average functioning adult. Please find me an ad that could be construed in that manner, please.

 

[sober_teacher]

Nope. For the vast majority of gun owners, firing stops at "target practice". They will never, nor have any intention, of aiming at a living being.

The intended purpose is to fire a projectile.

That’s their purpose. Not the gun.

 

[notlongago]

That’s their purpose. Not the gun.

Wrong. The firearm is designed to fire a projectile. That is the purpose. What happens to the projectile after firing is a function of the user and ammo & bullet design.

 

[dgordo]

I'm assuming you're at least an average functioning adult. Please find me an ad that could be construed in that manner, please.

i never said one could be construed in that manner.

 

[notlongago]

i never said one could be construed in that manner.

Exactly. So you don't have a point. That ad doesn't exist, unlike car ads which do depict dangerous behaviors, yet they are not held liable. So back to my question, does firearm marketing simply need a "do not use to murder" CYA disclaimer?

 

[dgordo]

Exactly. So you don't have a point. That ad doesn't exist, unlike car ads which do depict dangerous behaviors, yet they are not held liable. So back to my question, does firearm marketing simply need a "do not use to murder" CYA disclaimer?

i thought my point was obvious. If a car company made an ad that said buy this car because i can run over a lot of people like a tank that would likely be enough to hold them liable. For some reason you changed to driving recklessly which isn’t the same thing.

I’m not sure what would satisfy the Connecticut law. All we can say for sure is this court felt it was enough to go to trial.

 

[RileyHawk]

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?

You're an idiot.

 

[RileyHawk]

So were knives. So were arrows. So were clubs. Lots of things were invented to kill but have also found other uses.

If guns serve no purpose other than killing then why do >99% of all guns manufactured and sold to civilians never kill anyone? Are they defective or something?

No. That's absurd. Knives were invented to cut. You're an idiot.

 

[RileyHawk]

Can you show me the ad where it showed someone shooting a bunch of children?
Because there are car ads that depict driving fast and reckless, but theyre not held liable when some moron does it on the highway and crashes. Does "professional driver on closed course" relieve them of liability? Do we really need to ad a disclaimer to guns? "Not to be used for murder"....

Because cars are not designed to kill.

 

[RileyHawk]

Nope. For the vast majority of gun owners, firing stops at "target practice". They will never, nor have any intention, of aiming at a living being.

The intended purpose is to fire a projectile.

LOL - "vast majority". LOL

 

[RileyHawk]

Wrong. The firearm is designed to fire a projectile. That is the purpose. What happens to the projectile after firing is a function of the user and ammo & bullet design.

The lengths the right wingers will go to justify their abhorrent behavior.

 

[notlongago]

i thought my point was obvious. If a car company made an ad that said buy this car because i can run over a lot of people like a tank that would likely be enough to hold them liable. For some reason you changed to driving recklessly which isn’t the same thing.

I’m not sure what would satisfy the Connecticut law. All we can say for sure is this court felt it was enough to go to trial.

It is the same. They make ads that show reckless driving, but aren't held liable when their cars are recklessly driven and cause injury or death

 

[notlongago]

You're an idiot.

Hey, at least you got the right "you're". Riley's movin up in the world

 

[notlongago]

Because cars are not designed to kill.

Niether are guns. Glad you're tracking.

 

[notlongago]

LOL - "vast majority". LOL

Yes, as in "nearly all".

 

[notlongago]

The lengths the right wingers will go to justify their abhorrent behavior.

Not even registered as a republican, so add it to the list of things riley has gotten wrong.

 

[TJ8869]

No. That's absurd. Knives were invented to cut. You're an idiot.

Clearly you’ve never watched Braveheart.

 

[dgordo]

It is the same. They make ads that show reckless driving, but aren't held liable when their cars are recklessly driven and cause injury or death

i don’t think it’s the same. This isn’t that black and white, that’s why not every gun ad would have been actionable.

 

[notlongago]

i don’t think it’s the same. This isn’t that black and white, that’s why not every gun ad would have been actionable.

Why not? The only difference is the car ads are more overt.
We've all seen the ads of the car drifting, speeding, etc. We're all aware of stories, either directly or tangentially, of someone recklessly driving that resulted in injury or death of the driver, passenger or other drivers, yet there hasn't been a liability case (that I know of - please correct me if I'm wrong).
However, no one can seem to show any ads that can be contrued as enabling/suggesting/suggesting murder, but somehow the MFG is liable in that case?
Where's the consistency?

 

[dgordo]

Why not? The only difference is the car ads are more overt.
We've all seen the ads of the car drifting, speeding, etc. We're all aware of stories, either directly or tangentially, of someone recklessly driving that resulted in injury or death of the driver, passenger or other drivers, yet there hasn't been a liability case (that I know of - please correct me if I'm wrong).
However, no one can seem to show any ads that can be contrued as enabling/suggesting/suggesting murder, but somehow the MFG is liable in that case?
Where's the consistency?

i don’t think the gun ad was enough to rule against Remington. At least if I were on that jury I wouldn’t have. That’s my opinion and it’s consistent.

 

[sober_teacher]

Why not? The only difference is the car ads are more overt.
We've all seen the ads of the car drifting, speeding, etc. We're all aware of stories, either directly or tangentially, of someone recklessly driving that resulted in injury or death of the driver, passenger or other drivers, yet there hasn't been a liability case (that I know of - please correct me if I'm wrong).
However, no one can seem to show any ads that can be contrued as enabling/suggesting/suggesting murder, but somehow the MFG is liable in that case?
Where's the consistency?

Well for one, in those car ads you mention, they do ALWAYS specifically mention that said driving took place on a closed track, stunt drivers, cars do not drive on trains (I’ve seen that one), etc.

As for this marketing campaign they got sued over, I’m not familiar with the various ads outside what’s been posted in this thread, but my understanding is that this case was a bit of an outlier due to the specific Connecticut law they filed suit under. Presumably Remington has some smart lawyers in the payroll who believes it was at least a good chance they’d lose under this law so they chose to settle.

 

[sober_teacher]

i don’t think the gun ad was enough to rule against Remington. At least if I were on that jury I wouldn’t have. That’s my opinion and it’s consistent.

My understanding is that this was about an entire marketing campaign, not one single ad.

 

[Rifler]

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

Or investors just wanted the story to go away....

 

[TJ8869]

My understanding is that this was about an entire marketing campaign, not one single ad.

Can you provide even one example of a Remington advertisement that encourages or even suggests shooting innocent people?

 

[sober_teacher]

Or investors just wanted the story to go away....

maybe, but given the general history of victims trying to sue gun manufacturers for this kinda situation; still feels like a stretch to not duke it out in court unless you think there’s a better than average chance you lose and end up paying more.

 

[sober_teacher]

Can you provide even one example of a Remington advertisement that encourages or even suggests shooting innocent people?

As I said earlier, the only ads I’ve seen are the ones that have been posted in this thread, so I’ve no idea about the other ads in this campaign. No I don’t think they explicitly encouraged shooting people. But that’s kind of the point isn’t it? In ad campaigns, things are often implied but not explicitly said. In this case, it appears there was a Connecticut law that allowed people to sue the manufacturer for damages.

I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea how good the case was. But it was allowed to proceed to trial, and the Remington legal team felt that there was a decent chance they’d lose, hence the settlement. I assume it would have been a far larger payout if they lost in court.

 

[TJ8869]

As I said earlier, the only ads I’ve seen are the ones that have been posted in this thread, so I’ve no idea about the other ads in this campaign. No I don’t think they explicitly encouraged shooting people. But that’s kind of the point isn’t it? In ad campaigns, things are often implied but not explicitly said. In this case, it appears there was a Connecticut law that allowed people to sue the manufacturer for damages.

I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea how good the case was. But it was allowed to proceed to trial, and the Remington legal team felt that there was a decent chance they’d lose, hence the settlement. I assume it would have been a far larger payout if they lost in court.

I think the primary motivating factor for Remington to settle was that they were facing a February 17 deadline to turn over additional documents about the inner workings of the company. They might have decided it was worth $73 million to keep that information from becoming public knowledge.

 

[dgordo]

I think the primary motivating factor for Remington to settle was that they were facing a February 17 deadline to turn over additional documents about the inner workings of the company. They might have decided it was worth $73 million to keep that information from becoming public knowledge.

im fairly certain they agreed to turn them over as part of the settlement.

 

[TJ8869]

im fairly certain they agreed to turn them over as part of the settlement.

At least two different articles I’ve read, including Time magazine, said Remington avoided having to turn them over by settling.

 

[ft254]

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.

It doesn't matter. It's over. Settled. And you can bet by doing so it was the best option in their toolbox. And in the killer industry's toolbox.