General Sandy Hook families settle with Remington marking 1st time gun maker is held liable for mass shooting
- Thread starter La Paix
- Start date
never measured in centimeters
2.54 = 1 inch
I have a healthy 7+ centimeters apparently
2.54 = 1 inch
I have a healthy 7+ centimeters apparently
M
member 1013
Guest
CommunistI'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 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...
AR-15 Vs. M16 Parts
Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.www.ar15.com
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.
D
Deleted member 1
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.
M
member 1013
Guest
U will not radicalize me, comrade!
we still talking Civil prosecution? is that what you consider Justice? "bankruptcy" and a fine?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
The post I responded to said this:
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.
that's not the point of the lawsuit - the lawsuit had nothing to do with anything other than how Remington marketed the rifle.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 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...
AR-15 Vs. M16 Parts
Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.
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.
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.
@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.
that's why I call it propaganda.
just look at the OP.
generations of perpetual whiskey-dick...now I know why Conor McGregor and his nut-huggers are always so angry.
I hope this chart is a joke.....I have Japanese friends and my cock is very superior.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
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.
you just described the mainstream and social media companies.
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.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
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.
@Splinty -
it was all about marketing. The only aspect of the suit that went forward was the illegal marketing under Connecticut law.
it was all about marketing. The only aspect of the suit that went forward was the illegal marketing under Connecticut law.
Families of Sandy Hook victims may sue gunmaker over marketing practices, top state court says
The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.
www.abajournal.com
Came here to take issue with your statement about liability, but literally everyone else beat me to it.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.
Sandy Hook families settle with Remington, marking 1st time gun-maker held liable for mass shooting
Nine Sandy Hook Elementary School families have announced a settlement with Remington Arms, maker of the AR-15 used in the massacre.abcnews.go.com
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
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.@Splinty -
it was all about marketing. The only aspect of the suit that went forward was the illegal marketing under Connecticut law.
Families of Sandy Hook victims may sue gunmaker over marketing practices, top state court says
The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.www.abajournal.com
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
Remington Arms to pay $73 million to nine Sandy Hook families
Remington Arms will pay $73 million to the families of five children and four adults killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the families said on Tuesday, marking the first time a gunmaker has agreed to a major settlement over a mass shooting in the United States.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
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.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
Remington Arms to pay $73 million to nine Sandy Hook families
Remington Arms will pay $73 million to the families of five children and four adults killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the families said on Tuesday, marking the first time a gunmaker has agreed to a major settlement over a mass shooting in the United States.www.reuters.com
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"
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I'm not saying you're wrong, but he isn't wrong.
Here's just one data point
Effect of mass shootings on gun sales—A 20-year perspective
Granular data on gun sales has been historically difficult to obtain. In 2016, California (CA) made monthly data from 1996 to 2015 publically available. Control charts are a method to analyze how a process changes over time in response to nonroutine events. ...
Googles fll of graphs