General Sandy Hook families settle with Remington marking 1st time gun maker is held liable for mass shooting
- Thread starter La Paix
- Start date
So this is the crux? A gun that’s sold to the general public was marketed as something to lure military/police LARPers? It sure seems this way but trying to talk guns with some people instantly triggers hostility I see. Here’s some ads
Bushmaster’s graphics often contain military and law-enforcement imagery while employing terminology like “duty” and “patrol” and feature phrases such as “Control Your Destiny” and “Bravery on Duty.”
The Bushmaster advertising and catalog copy samples featured in this report illustrate what happens when a gun company decides to cater to the “wants and needs” of “potential buyers...interested only in tactical guns” and their “military-ish looks and features.”
Remington Outdoor Company has made a decision. It is willing to risk mass shootings in its quest for profit — no matter the price paid in death and injury, anguish and heartbreak.
Bushmaster’s graphics often contain military and law-enforcement imagery while employing terminology like “duty” and “patrol” and feature phrases such as “Control Your Destiny” and “Bravery on Duty.”
The Bushmaster advertising and catalog copy samples featured in this report illustrate what happens when a gun company decides to cater to the “wants and needs” of “potential buyers...interested only in tactical guns” and their “military-ish looks and features.”
Remington Outdoor Company has made a decision. It is willing to risk mass shootings in its quest for profit — no matter the price paid in death and injury, anguish and heartbreak.
Every month an American Rifleman magazine shows up on my doorstep and it will for life since I'm a lifetime member of the NRA.
The ads are so cheesy I wish I had cut out many of them to save over the years
weve been reminding people of the military basis of these guns for decades
@Filthy will be mad to see colt themselves call their rifle the civilian version of the M16...because it is.
no one is hostile, except maybe you being hostile to facts regarding the lawsuit and the settlement.
how many rifles did Bushmaster sell, and how many mass shootings resulted?
how do you quantify risk?
you're really bad at lawyering.
All Mexico needs to do is show that they marketed guns that are illegal in Mexico?
do you think that the firearm manufacturers took out ads in Mexican magazines and marketed to Mexicans that they should acquire guns that are illegal in Mexico?
We regularly take products off the market and penalize companies for a small number of deaths because of the high potential for more deaths and negligence in selling that product.
We don't say "only 10 kids died from that crib and their are millions of cribs so its a really small percentage".
I have no idea. And I guess you don't either.
I am simply saying that their burden will be very different than the USA where the product is legal but argued negligent in sale.
from the ABA article
the 'negligent marketing' was the only part of the lawsuit that was allowed to proceed.
Do you think that their strategy of negligently marketing a weapon "too dangerous for civilians to use" would have been successful?
that's not what the lawsuit is about, that's not how international lawsuits are adjudicated.
It helps if you look up the lawsuit and read a little bit on it before adding commentary.
M
member 1013
Guest
Americans I’m gonna say it, and you’re gonna have to accept it. As a gun owner, you guys disgust me.
BOOM
BOOM
I'm not a fan of nonsensical lawsuits. Gun manufacturers don't sell guns with the intent that they be used in mass-shootings. Where do we draw the line on responsibility?
Worked about as good as the masks. ?@Hauler I forgot about the gun hording to shoot the virus a couple years ago -- remeber this?
View attachment 60896
no, really.
look up the lawsuit and what it alleges instead of just reading a headline.
the entire lawsuit was predicated on the prior offer by Remington's insurers to settle ($33M that was rejected)
Mexico is alleging that all of those manufacturers set up their sales/marketing/distribution to funnel weapons illegally to Mexico.
but it's farcical. It's equally likely that the Connecticut law will be struck down as a violation of Federal protections.
do you agree with their strategy and their desired outcome?
No really go ahead and post it
M
member 1013
Guest
He's certainly not wrong. And it makes sense. People want to protect themselves against chaos.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. ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Googles fll of graphs
M
member 1013
Guest
Disagree
You think that people run out and buy guns after mass shootings to primarily protect themselves from chaos? And not the threat of bans?
you're so averse to facts that you won't even go look for them?
M
member 1013
Guest
There are so many guns, it’s chaos! What will help this? MORE GUNS
Dozens of US District Attorneys, US State Attorneys File Amicus Brief in Support of Mexico Suit Against Gun Makers | Law.com International
The sovereign states of Antigua and Barbuda and Belize also filed a brief in support of the case, arguing that guns trafficked from the U.S. harm people across Latin America and the Caribbean.
www.law.com