Remington settlement- what’s next

Been reading various stuff on the Remington settlement to the families of the Victims. My heart goes out to these families and I can only begin to understand their grief.

But I do think that Remington opened the flood gates. Haven’t found anything I think is accurate for exactly why they settled. I get the risks of long court battles and wanting to cut losses and move on. But why and what will this lead to??

So, will this open up auto makers to lawsuits when a car is used in reckless driving? Will Eskimo be sued when someone gets their wife/girlfriend pregnant because of the ice bikini advertising? ( think that was Eskimo I saw on social media) the list is endless and we could post examples all day long.

Advertising has always used sex, appeal to male ego, and female emotions. If you think Remington’s man card ad for an ar platform rifle is bad, holy snowflakes- look at car ads. If you didn’t have your man card threatened by the late 60’s early 70’s muscle car ads, you never had one.

Im probably venting more than anything because I believe the accountability is with the user.

I saw this settlement too Randy. Took a long time to get hashed out.

While I do NOT think a firearms company should be held accountable or liable for a product they sell, as you stated, they specifically marketed their product to a younger male generation as being “macho” or “tough” when holding or using their product, which was an AR. Apparently the company did specifically target this demographic with their product, they must have admitted to it, and evidence showed this, otherwise they wouldn’t have settled with the victims.

Its a slippery slope to be heading down, that’s for sure.

I believe that the state it occurred in, Connecticut, also played a role in the outcome. Had it occurred in a state with looser gun laws, I don’t think the lawsuit outcome would have been the same.

If someone is stabbed by a certain very sharp knife, the victims family should now be able to sue the knife manufacturer.

If you make the gas that’s used in an arson fire and someone dies, you could be sued!

I could go on and on, it’s complete bs to me. This could lead to a slippery slope for all gun manufacturers, pretty scary to see our great country going that way.

Norsky wrote:

If someone is stabbed by a certain very sharp knife, the victims family should now be able to sue the knife manufacturer.

If you make the gas that’s used in an arson fire and someone dies, you could be sued!

I could go on and on, it’s complete bs to me. This could lead to a slippery slope for all gun manufacturers, pretty scary to see our great country going that way.

That’s not exactly why the lawsuit occurred though. Remington specifically marketed and targeted their product in the deadly manner, and it back fired. If they had simply sold their product without marketing it in this manner, there would not have been a lawsuit.

If Exxon Mobile marketed their gasoline to a pyromaniac as an explosive or flammable product that could be used to make a home made bomb, and then that demographic used that gasoline as such, we might see another lawsuit.

Yes of course I understand that their marketing was a little questionable but that still is absolutely ridiculous. I’m sure if you did some research and looked around you can probably find ads with tough guys wielding a knife. Should that company be liable if their knife was ever used to kill someone? It’s a slippery slope that the lawyers will use.

I bet within six months there will be multiple lawsuits against the other gun manufacturers that will pop up, due to “marketing”.

Norsky wrote:

I bet within six months there will be multiple lawsuits against the other gun manufacturers that will pop up, due to “marketing”.

Perhaps. We can only hope that’s not the case. Maybe the marketing will change as a result of this.

Shifting the focus away from the black scary gun to baseball bats – what about ads focused at kids that gives them the ability to swing a bat harder and be a “force” ?? So if he bashes someone’s skull in is the manufacture liable because they advertised you can swing this bay harder?

Randy Wieland wrote:

So if he bashes someone’s skull in is the manufacture liable because they advertised you can swing this bay harder?

If its marketed to kids as something that can be specifically used to bash a skull, ya I could see this happening again.

If its marketed as a better bat in baseball, and used as such, no.

A bat is advertised to swing and hit an object, rifle is advertised to discharge a projectile, automobile is advertised to to be driven and so on. When does common sense prevail in liability in how something is used? My belief is there is too much tunnel vision on what some people want as an end goal.

At what point will a manufacturer be held accountable for how someone perceives an ad? When I see an ad for a truck hauling down a road with 425hp and x amount of torque and I’m told it can get me through anything, if I perceive a crowd of protesters as “anything “, can they sue also?

Remington settled to end the litigation and the expense. It is also a gamble to go forward to a jury trial because the jury could come back with even higher damages. Also, I would speculate that their insurance played a part in the settlement, settle now for a known number and maximize the percentage that is paid by insurance vs risk a larger verdict with a larger portion not covered.

This was never going to go well for Remington. Whether or not the advertising played a role, we’ll never know. Needless to say, the macho man advertising didn’t help Remington’s case here. There’s going to be a lot of re-evaluation of advertising in the firearms industry.

Hopefully, this returns the focus to the real cause of these killings–mental illness and the inability to provide resources and also compel seriously mentally ill people to treatment. Adam Lanza had already been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders well before the killings. In the months before the shootings he displayed increasing signs of schizophrenia and other mental disorders, but yet he went untreated and was passed from agency to agency with nobody doing anything to help him.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

Whether or not the advertising played a role, we’ll never know. Needless to say, the macho man advertising didn’t help Remington’s case here. There’s going to be a lot of re-evaluation of advertising in the firearms industry.

Where was this advertising? Magazines? I havent seen anything, but I dont subscribe to magazines.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Where was this advertising? Magazines? I havent seen anything, but I dont subscribe to magazines.

Neither have I. The lawsuit isn’t going to be made public either since they settled privately outside of court.

Famous Grouse, those are exactly my thoughts. They keep saying they are going to fund Mental illness research and treatment and it is always inadequate.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Where was this advertising? Magazines? I havent seen anything, but I dont subscribe to magazines.

The references I’ve seen were magazine ads placed by Remington for their Bushmaster brand of AR rifles. The “man card” ads have been referenced, but I’m not sure if they specifically were entered as evidence in the trial.

The whole push of the plaintiff’s case was that Remington was creating an advertising image that promoted a Bushmaster owner as being “powerful” and “dominating” and therefore they deliberately appealed to someone like Lanza who had feelings of powerlessness and being a victim of bullying.

And of course, I will have to add that I don’t agree with this type of reasoning. Lanza was severely mentally ill and the only thing that could have prevented his killing spree would have been confining him for mental health treatment.

Edit: The site won’t allow the posting of links/pictures again, but there are plenty of photos of the ads online.

cbeeksma wrote:

Famous Grouse, those are exactly my thoughts. They keep saying they are going to fund Mental illness research and treatment and it is always inadequate.

There has been a little progress, mostly in public perception of some mental illnesses. Here is the $$$$ view of it. Why would a hospital designate the resources and space for maybe $300. /hr vs labs, surgical, and other procedures that produce thousands per hour. Try to be a new patient with with a phyc. Wait times are months out. No medical facilities want to staff according to
Public needs because it has little profits in the big picture

What about all the video games that advertise killing with guns, swords, knives, clubs, axes, bombs, etc. All kids see these ads and how many buy/play the game starting at an early age? These companies should not be allowed to advertise those.
And yet THE GUN is the problem.????
Makes no sense to me.

MX1825 wrote:

What about all the video games that advertise killing with guns, swords, knives, clubs, axes, bombs, etc. All kids see these ads and how many buy/play the game starting at an early age? These companies should not be allowed to advertise those.
And yet THE GUN is the problem.????
Makes no sense to me.

I never thought about that one. Interesting. I still play Call of Duty myself sometimes and definitely played Grand Theft Auto years ago. They are making a new version of Grand Theft Auto as we speak, and I’m sure it will be very popular.

gimruis
So you can go steal your next vehicle and it’s not your fault.
Sue the maker of Grand Theft Auto for turning to a life of crime.

MX1825 wrote:

gimruis
So you can go steal your next vehicle and it’s not your fault.
Sue the maker of Grand Theft Auto for turning to a life of crime.

LOL. I’ll pass on that one. And technically it would be the victim who could sue, not me. So the person I stole it FROM.

I think we should give this a try together. Let me steal your car and then you can win a lawsuit against General Motors. We split the money. Deal?

The part that has not been brought up is didn’t he steal the gun from his mom? As he wasn’t the purchaser?

You would think that the marketing angle would of required the perp to purchase a gun based on those ads. He killed his mother and stole her gun.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MX1825 wrote:</div>
gimruis
So you can go steal your next vehicle and it’s not your fault.
Sue the maker of Grand Theft Auto for turning to a life of crime.

LOL. I’ll pass on that one. And technically it would be the victim who could sue, not me. So the person I stole it FROM.

I think we should give this a try together. Let me steal your car and then you can win a lawsuit against General Motors. We split the money. Deal?

Sounds like a well thought out plan.

So I guess I could sue silverware manufactures for making me fat, breweries for dui’s and divorces and vehicle manufactures for speeding tickets. What a complete joke

Pizza Hut needs to quit marketing their pizza, it’s making me fat. I’ve never seen a Bushmaster advertisement showing it was good for school shootings. I guess if I seen an ad for that, I can see some manufacturer liability.

Coletrain27 wrote:

So I guess I could sue silverware manufactures for making me fat, breweries for dui’s and divorces and vehicle manufactures for speeding tickets. What a complete joke

You’ve missed the point of the lawsuit here.

Its the specific marketing ploy that they were held responsible for. Not those random daily outcomes you are listing above.

I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I don’t. I’m just telling you how it went down.

Gun safety 101. DON’T POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT. What you chose to destroy is on you. The gun manufacture should not be accountable on what you chose.

If so: I chose to get married + wife turns out to be a B = government has to pay me for half of my stuff I lost because they married me. If the judge didn’t pass my paper work I would have not been married and lost have my stuff. I was sold by advertisements to believe being married would make me happy. LOL Don’t think so.

gimruis wrote:

You’ve missed the point of the lawsuit here.

Its the specific marketing ploy that they were held responsible for. Not those random daily outcomes you are listing above.

I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I don’t. I’m just tell how it went down.

I didn’t miss anything. They want to blame guns for killing people it’s pretty simple. My post was a simple joke settle down and don’t take it personal

Coletrain27 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
You’ve missed the point of the lawsuit here.

Its the specific marketing ploy that they were held responsible for. Not those random daily outcomes you are listing above.

I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I don’t. I’m just tell how it went down.

I didn’t miss anything. They want to blame guns for killing people it’s pretty simple. My post was a simple joke settle down and don’t take it personal

To a certain extent, we all knew this is/was coming. This group just found the attorney that made the best attempt to connect the dots. I’m sure this is not the last one either. I just think this is the one that opens the flood gates to sue any manufacturer if you can stretch reality that thin

Randy Wieland wrote:

To a certain extent, we all knew this is/was coming. This group just found the attorney that made the best attempt to connect the dots. I’m sure this is not the last one either. I just think this is the one that opens the flood gates to sue any manufacturer if you can stretch reality that thin

Exactly, this is just a stepping stone now for more to come! When or where do you draw the line for common sense anymore?

This is stupid. flower
Tards. Remington is a new company again anyways. Remington Arms and Remington Ammunition are seperate. Both have changed hands. Firearm industry is very dynamic this way for the past 20 years or so. Same as most industry. Colt was bought by Walther some years ago, etc, etc, etc…