General Sandy Hook families settle with Remington marking 1st time gun maker is held liable for mass shooting

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Rambo John J

Baker Team
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
74,287
73,695
never measured in centimeters
2.54 = 1 inch


I have a healthy 7+ centimeters apparently
 
M

member 1013

Guest
I'll let you just keep arguing until you're blue in the face as if I haven't built these guns. The minutial differences between the trigger groups is pedantic except for the ability for auto fire, what's the author clearly states is primary the difference between the two weapons. And it is.

For anybody who's not in a technical know-how and wondering how similar are these parts. Is Splinty @Splinty and the article guy just making things up?

Feel free to scroll the AR-15.com guide on how to identify the difference between the two because of how easy it is to mix them up...





They don't just look the same. When placed in the semi-automatic mode both weapons work in identical fashion. That's the point of the author's post, the lawsuit, and it's true.
Communist
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Communist
I don't want these guns banned. But I would like some honest dialogue that doesn't make gun owners look like technocrats hiding behind terms instead of addressing the real question of whether we should have a right to these weapons and how to balance that with school children being shot.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
I don't want these guns banned. But I would like some honest dialogue that doesn't make gun owners look like technocrats hiding behind terms instead of addressing the real question of whether we should have a right to these weapons and how to balance that with school children being shot.
U will not radicalize me, comrade!
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
Did the judge just strip away the settlement because it would have given them protection?
we still talking Civil prosecution? is that what you consider Justice? "bankruptcy" and a fine?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
we still talking Civil prosecution? is that what you consider Justice? "bankruptcy" and a fine?

The post I responded to said this:

If companies are going to be sued because of their products, start with lining up those vile cunts who knowingly created millions of pharmaceutical heroin addicts for profit
Id like to see criminal prosecution of individuals given that it's a private company that was personally directing illegal activities. But that wasn't the topic to which I responded.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
I'll let you just keep arguing until you're blue in the face as if I haven't built these guns. The minutial differences between the trigger groups is pedantic except for the ability for auto fire, what's the author clearly states is primary the difference between the two weapons. And it is.

For anybody who's not in a technical know-how and wondering how similar are these parts. Is Splinty @Splinty and the article guy just making things up?

Feel free to scroll the AR-15.com guide on how to identify the difference between the two because of how easy it is to mix them up...





They don't just look the same. When placed in the semi-automatic mode both weapons work in identical fashion. That's the point of the author's post, the lawsuit, and it's true.
that's not the point of the lawsuit - the lawsuit had nothing to do with anything other than how Remington marketed the rifle.

And you're saying the same thing that I am - that they look the same and function completely differently. One rifle discharges one round per trigger pull, the other discharges multiple. And we haven't even touched on the completely different laws regulating the two rifles. This author is trying to conflate something that is more similar in function to Grandpa's shotgun with something that only the military has ready access to.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
Splinty @Splinty - read that article and tell me if Remington was forced to acknowledge liability for making a murder-gun used in Sandy Hook murders, or if Remington was forced to settle an outstanding lawsuit in order to proceed with financial restructuring.

that's why I call it propaganda.

just look at the OP.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
read that article and tell me if Remington was forced to acknowledge liability
You know as well as I do that it's common for settlements that the paying party refuses to admit liability in order to protect themselves.
I also haven't mentioned the liability topic. Only the argument of the lawsuit.


that's not the point of the lawsuit - the lawsuit had nothing to do with anything other than how Remington marketed the rifle.

The families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
Especially ones that make money off death, misery, paranoia and social division? The worse off America is, the better for him manufacturers. Every time there's another horrific massacre, their sales go up.

??
you just described the mainstream and social media companies.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
You know as well as I do that it's common for settlements that the paying party refuses to admit liability in order to protect themselves.
I also haven't mentioned the liability topic. Only the argument of the lawsuit.





The families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.
the entire case was based around how Remington marketed the rifle to young men. Are you disputing that?

and let's be clear about the liability - Remington didn't settle with anyone and made no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, fault, or culpability. It was the insurance companies that settled the lawsuit and agreed to pay the $73M.

I don't mean this in the dickish way it's going to come off, but I don't get the vibe you've read much beyond this article on the lawsuit.
if i'm wrong, I'm sorry.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
the entire case was based around how Remington marketed the rifle to young men. Are you disputing that?

I just quoted above. Apparently it was also about negligently providing a military/Le tool to untrained civilians.

As such a topic that the two weapons are substantially similar (military and civilian) except semi-automatic is entirely on topic of the lawsuit.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633
I just quoted above. Apparently it was also about negligently providing a military/Le tool to untrained civilians.

As such a topic that the two weapons are substantially similar (military and civilian) except semi-automatic is entirely on topic of the lawsuit.
Which part of the lawsuit do you think was likely to succeed?


regarding the firearms:

they are substantially similar, they have a lot of similarities - they look a lot a like. they both shoot one of the most common hunting rounds.

they are not substantively similar, similar in a defining way - they function in very different ways. Critical parts are not interchangeable. They are handled very differently by the law. The AR-15 is closer to Barney Fife's revolver in function and legal status than it is an M-16.
 

Qat

QoQ
Nov 3, 2015
16,385
22,482
I think I just found my calling in life.

I'm gonna become a Porsche manager and make them build tanks again to sell it to American patriots.

 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,633

Wintermute

Putin is gay
Apr 24, 2015
5,816
9,189
Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held liable for a mass shooting in the U.S.

Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million.

Came here to take issue with your statement about liability, but literally everyone else beat me to it.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Splinty @Splinty -

it was all about marketing. The only aspect of the suit that went forward was the illegal marketing under Connecticut law.

Maybe I'm missing something in your link that says parts of the plaintiff's lawsuit were dismissed and only a very narrow marketing argument was left that was not based around marketing and overly dangerous weapon to untrained civilians.

The crux of the entire argument in each link so far is that they are marketing something that is too dangerous for civilian use. Every quote in the article you just posted references from the plaintiffs military and law enforcement.

In order to continue profiting from the sale of AR-15s, defendants chose to disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement,” the plaintiffs contend in a complaint filed in Bridgeport Superior Court. They seek unspecified monetary damages, the Associated Press reports.

Although a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars most lawsuits against gun makers, an exception applies concerning negligent entrustment.

That is defined by the law as “the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others,” the Hartford Courant reports.

The plaintiffs allege that Remington Outdoor Co., which owns Bushmaster Firearms International; distributor Camfour; and the now-shuttered Riverview Gun Sales outlet negligently entrusted to a third party a rifle that was not suitable for civilian use, the Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.).

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not trying to play one. But I don't see a link that says anything else. They all keep referencing that the plaintiffs are saying that the gun maker was marketing a highly skilled tool that was too dangerous to untrained civilians And as such were negligent in that marketing.

Unless you show me something different, it's very clear that the core of the argument requires that one shows that the rifles marketed are substantially similar to the military rifles and were marketed to make untrained idiots feel like they were bad A operators which leads to an irresponsible usage of a tool too dangerous for civilians.
 

La Paix

Fuck this place
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
38,273
64,362
Maybe I'm missing something in your link that says parts of the plaintiff's lawsuit were dismissed and only a very narrow marketing argument was left that was not based around marketing and overly dangerous weapon to untrained civilians.

The crux of the entire argument in each link so far is that they are marketing something that is too dangerous for civilian use. Every quote in the article you just posted references from the plaintiffs military and law enforcement.




I'm not a lawyer. I'm not trying to play one. But I don't see a link that says anything else. They all keep referencing that the plaintiffs are saying that the gun maker was marketing a highly skilled tool that was too dangerous to untrained civilians And as such were negligent in that marketing.

Unless you show me something different, it's very clear that the core of the argument requires that one shows that the rifles marketed are substantially similar to the military rifles and were marketed to make untrained idiots feel like they were bad A operators which leads to an irresponsible usage of a tool too dangerous for civilians.
Gun control advocates have been encouraged by the Sandy Hook legal strategy, including New Jersey's attorney general, who is investigating Smith & Wesson's marketing.

Mexico filed a U.S. lawsuit last year seeking $10 billion from several gunmakers, accusing them of marketing their weapons to the country's gangs.
read more

 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Gun control advocates have been encouraged by the Sandy Hook legal strategy, including New Jersey's attorney general, who is investigating Smith & Wesson's marketing.

Mexico filed a U.S. lawsuit last year seeking $10 billion from several gunmakers, accusing them of marketing their weapons to the country's gangs.
read more

I would imagine that the Mexico lawsuit only needs to show that the companies market an illegal gun to their populace since they have such restrictive gun laws. Maybe also that the gun makers know or ignore that certain gun dealers are the source of huge percentages of those guns that are trafficked.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
47,090
59,057
Every time there's another horrific massacre, their sales go up.
Actually, every time there is a Dem elected their sales go up.

2016 through 2020 wasn't a good time to own gun or ammo stock. It was known as the "Trump Slump"
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Actually, every time there is a Dem elected their sales go up.

2016 through 2020 wasn't a good time to own gun or ammo stock. It was known as the "Trump Slump"
I'm not saying you're wrong, but he isn't wrong.
Here's just one data point

Googles fll of graphs