Remington pays 73 million to Sandy Hook families

[RetCapt]

When this lawsuit was initiated, and the reference to the advertising statement "...consider your man card renewed..." was announced, I anticipated a problem.

Let me turn mother's picture to the wall for a moment. There are persons who just do not have the emotional stability to be in possession of firearms. Adam Lanza was one of those. LE agencies use psychological evaluations as part of the hiring process to screen out such applicants. All of us who have been LEOs have, in the course of our careers, run into many such individuals.

When I taught my CCW classes, I would open each class by telling my students that I was going to train them for a situation in which they had to hope and pray (being we were in church helped, I hope) they would never find themselves. I told them this had to be their state of mind. If it was not, then during the first break, leave the class.

Like it or not, there are plenty of Adam Lanzas out there. This is the type of individual to which "...consider your man card renewed..." advertising would appeal, as if the simple act of acquiring a firearm would somehow transform a psychologically inadequate male into a man.

Bluntly stated; extremely bad decision by Remington of advertising target. Rhetorically it can be asked who Remington envisioned as the purchaser using this approach. I don't know of any good answer.

This ill-conceived advertising decision gave plaintiffs the opening they needed. And, unfortunately, it also gave the anti-2A advocates a huge push to use this tragic incident against all the rest of us.

I don't blame plaintiffs.

I do blame Remington.

 

[waffles]

I think a lot of gun advertising is pretty cringeworthy. I also don't love a lot of the zombie things, and especially the "public figure as a zombie" targets that were popular around that time. I was also involved with some local efforts to expand shooting to non-traditional shooters (similar to the efforts currently ongoing in hunting and fishing to get young people, women, and minority participation up) at the time the "consider your mancard reissued" ad went out and found it particularly counterproductive, but I also don't think Remington's advertising was awful enough that it should be held liable for the actions of the nutjob any more than the shop that sold it to Lanza's mom (Riverview, a place I purchased a couple of guns from a year or two prior) was.

It's also totally reasonable to discuss, as gun enthusiasts, issues regarding the image of our hobby to the general public, especially in a thread about how a gun manufacturer got a large fine over their advertising. I've seen nobody in here I'd describe as anti-gun, and attacking each other over this gets us nothing. The purity tests on obviously pro-gun people and discussions on either side about russian or Soros involvement get us nowhere but the arfcom GD, and I'd prefer this site not go down that road.

 

[ggibson511960]

The New Normal

This is not right but I understand why they settled. I just hope this sort of thing doesn't become the norm.

The new normal has arrived, courtesy of our corrupt tort law system. Insurance rates to guard against jackpot justice are why a new Cessna 172 costs half a million dollars. Insurance underwriters now write individual policies against each airframe, not the larger corporation. Our system has no limit on the share of winnings that get carved out to the plaintiff bar. Legislation to divert more claims to alternate dispute resolution is not politically favored. Compensatory damages correctly go to victims, but punitive damages also funnel to winning plaintiffs and their legal counsel. Why? Corrupt legislators and bureaucrats, aided and abetted by false compassion for victims fuels an industry that adds nothing to our standard of living, but richly rewards those with legal prowess to exploit our negligence.

 

[smithra_66]

When this lawsuit was initiated, and the reference to the advertising statement "...consider your man card renewed..." was announced, I anticipated a problem.

Let me turn mother's picture to the wall for a moment. There are persons who just do not have the emotional stability to be in possession of firearms. Adam Lanza was one of those. LE agencies use psychological evaluations as part of the hiring process to screen out such applicants. All of us who have been LEOs have, in the course of our careers, run into many such individuals.

When I taught my CCW classes, I would open each class by telling my students that I was going to train them for a situation in which they had to hope and pray (being we were in church helped, I hope) they would never find themselves. I told them this had to be their state of mind. If it was not, then during the first break, leave the class.

Like it or not, there are plenty of Adam Lanzas out there. This is the type of individual to which "...consider your man card renewed..." advertising would appeal, as if the simple act of acquiring a firearm would somehow transform a psychologically inadequate male into a man.

Bluntly stated; extremely bad decision by Remington of advertising target. Rhetorically it can be asked who Remington envisioned as the purchaser using this approach. I don't know of any good answer.

This ill-conceived advertising decision gave plaintiffs the opening they needed. And, unfortunately, it also gave the anti-2A advocates a huge push to use this tragic incident against all the rest of us.

I don't blame plaintiffs.

I do blame Remington.

Great. Keep blaming gun companies, not the illogical ambulance chasers.

If you can say that "Man Card" somehow equates to "shoot a bunch of young children in school," then you need to reassess your analysis skills.

Hell, I can buy a "man card" on Amazon right now: [ame]https://www.amazon.com/Man-Card/dp/B071GM69F3[/ame].

We're in bizarro world when gun owners are agreeing with anti gun ambulance chasers.

We're not winning ANY hearts and minds when we're basically saying "man card" means commit a vicious murder. There are so many old ads in gun magazines that basically said "Teach your son to be a man" with XYZ gun.

You're not convincing me that this is bad advertising. We need more masculinity in the world lately.

 

[smithra_66]

Here's an old Redfield mounts ad from April of 1944. We were in the middle of winning WW2 and this was back before the country got soft with "toxic masculinity" and before lawyers figured out they could fleece people using emotional, rather than logical, arguments.

Tell me this Bushmaster "man card" ad is anywhere near this one!

 

[BC38]

Here's an old Redfield mounts ad from April of 1944. We were in the middle of winning WW2 and this was back before the country got soft with "toxic masculinity" and before lawyers figured out they could fleece people using emotional, rather than logical, arguments.

Tell me this Bushmaster "man card" ad is anywhere near this one!

Like I said before - you're stuck in the past.

1944? That is over 3/4 of a CENTURY ago. In 1944 they were still advertising cigarettes as being healthy! Kids took their rifles to school with them. They respected their elders. EVERYTHING about the entire world was different then than what it is now. We can't pretend it is still 1944 just because we wish it were.

I've always said that one of the problems with the left's mindset is that they act as if the world works the way that they WANT it to (idealism) - instead of dealing with the world the way it REALLY works (reality).

I now see that they aren't alone in that mindset.

 

[biku324]

I'm often reminded of my wise old FIL, who would often shake his head and say, "It hadn't ought to be that way, but it is." Then he'd adapt and move on. The other side certainly does.

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting the gun control version of Texas' abortion law that he called for in December.

State Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) on Friday unveiled new legislation that would allow Californians to sue makers and sellers of assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, ghost guns or ghost gun kits. Officials didn't go into the details of the bill, but made it clear that it's based on a Texas law allowing people to sue abortion providers."

 

[mtgianni]

The insurance company of a company in bankruptcy decided to settle a lawsuit. No idea where they will be placed on the list of creditors and whether or if any payments will result.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

It is a settlement so it is not binding on other gun makers, and Remington of the lawsuit is no more anyway - which is likely a reason that they chose to settle for reasons already discussed. The angle of attack by the plaintiffs was the Remington advertisement of guns as being great things for teen boys to be macho with, I do not have an example of this advertisement, but I am confident that other makers are removing their appeals to teens from their advertising. Unfortunate concession albeit by a bankrupt gunmaker, but it will be difficult for others to replicate this settlement on this magnitude. The true Sandy Hook victims with whom I sympathize for their loss and the pretend relatives that never met the deceased have their pound of flesh, and we can move on. I am curious to see if the bar now applies this "legal logic" against sports cars. Manufacturers of sports cars are in the same position with their advertising. Don't blame the system, unless you have a better one.

 

[smithra_66]

I'm often reminded of my wise old FIL, who would often shake his head and say, "It hadn't ought to be that way, but it is." Then he'd adapt and move on. The other side certainly does.

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting the gun control version of Texas' abortion law that he called for in December.

State Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) on Friday unveiled new legislation that would allow Californians to sue makers and sellers of assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, ghost guns or ghost gun kits. Officials didn't go into the details of the bill, but made it clear that it's based on a Texas law allowing people to sue abortion providers."

30 years ago, we didn't have concealed carry in 45+ states.

Things change to "our side" when we fight for them. We lose rights when we are weak kneed and say "oh well, things used to be the right way, but they aren't now and we have to accept it."

 

[biku324]

Fighting with each other is an ineffective strategy. For anything.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Fighting with each other is an ineffective strategy. For anything.

That is very true....! unfortunately I also fear too many people really are asleep.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Tom S.]

Those of you saying you will never buy Remington products again need to rethink that! Rather than tell you why you are wrong, I suggest you Google "Colion Noir Remington Settlement" (copy and paste should work) and watch the Youtube video. I would post a direct link but he uses a four letter word for excrement that is not allowed here. In fact, I suggest everyone watch his video regardless of your position on the settlement.

His assessment of the situation is spot on and will tell you why you are absolutely wrong for you stance against Remington.

 

[ladder13]

Colion Noir "Do you know what the 2A actually says?"


Unfortunately many "gun owners" don't.

 

[ken158]

According to The Insurer - Remington's four insurance companies agreed to settle the suit by paying the 73M. So there you have it - the lawyers created enough issues that made the settlement worth more than the fight.

 

[BC38]

...the lawyers created enough issues that made the settlement more cost effective than the fight.

Fixed it for you.

 

[bushmaster1313]

As a lawyer I find this lawsuit and this result wrong on many levels:

1) This is exactly the type lawsuit that the Federal statute was intended to prevent;

2) Any reasonable jury should find that there is no proximate cause linking the tragic shooting to anything that Remington did that was culpable conduct;

3) Any reasonable judge should throw this case out both as preempted by the Federal statute and because there is no culpable conduct on the part of Remington that caused the tragedy.

 

[KSDeputy]

I completely agree. How a product is misused is not the fault of the product's maker.