Remington settles with Sandy Hook Parents: 73 Million

[Dill]

Surprised no one has already begun a thread on this. Looks like they may have cracked open the gun industry on the model of litigation against the tobacco industry back in the '70s.

One aspect of this which interests me is the contrast between the way military-style semi-automatic weapons are sometimes defended by 2A advocates (as functionally no different from non-military) and the apparent niche marketing to "couch commandos" as weapons designed to intimidate and kill other humans.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/sandy-hook-families-settle-with-remington-for-73-million/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/sandy-hook-shooting-settlement-with-remington/index.html

The families sued Remington in 2014, alleging it should be held partially responsible for the shooting because of its marketing strategy. A 2005 federal law protects many gun manufacturers from wrongful death lawsuits brought by family members -- but the marketing argument was a new approach.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.

The US Supreme Court in 2019 decided not to take up an appeal by Remington, effectively allowing the suit to move forward.
The settlement also should be a warning to insurance companies covering gun manufacturers, Koskoff said.

"Insurance companies, it's time for you to start treating the gun industry like you treat me every time I get a speeding ticket. ... You raise my rates," he said. "Have you ever heard of an insurance company standing behind an insured that has no care whatsoever for the risk they're creating? ... Where is the oversight? This can be done."

The public should "stay tuned" for more information about the thousands of internal Remington documents the plaintiffs obtained, Koskoff said[i][/i]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html

Like Connecticut, New York has adopted a consumer protection measure that could be used against gunmakers; a similar bill has been introduced in California, and elected officials in other states, including New Jersey, are also considering introducing proposals that could offer a template to families of victims in mass shootings.

The families contended that Remington violated state law by promoting the weapon with an approach that appealed to so-called couch commandos and troubled young men like the gunman who committed the Sandy Hook massacre.

[Belsnickel]

This may only be a symbolic victory given the status of Remington, but one that may change firearms advertising for the foreseeable future. I don't really know what that advertising looks like, though. I couldn't honestly tell you the last time I saw an ad for a gun, though the last one was probably for a shotgun I couldn't afford used for upland game.

[CKwi88]

(02-16-2022, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This may only be a symbolic victory given the status of Remington, but one that may change firearms advertising for the foreseeable future. I don't really know what that advertising looks like, though. I couldn't honestly tell you the last time I saw an ad for a gun, though the last one was probably for a shotgun I couldn't afford used for upland game.

Didn't even know they did ads for guns. I figured it was kind of like tobacco.

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2022, 09:32 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Didn't even know they did ads for guns. I figured it was kind of like tobacco.

They mostly advertise in print media that is aimed at their target demographic. For example, I read Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Bear Hunting Magazine, and some others. There are gun ads in those, but it's all based around hunting. The more general gun magazines likely have ads that may be a little more "tactical" in focus.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-16-2022, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This may only be a symbolic victory given the status of Remington, but one that may change firearms advertising for the foreseeable future. I don't really know what that advertising looks like, though. I couldn't honestly tell you the last time I saw an ad for a gun, though the last one was probably for a shotgun I couldn't afford used for upland game.

I can't see it being a victory at all.  The CT judge clearly ignored federal law in allowing this lawsuit to go forward.  I can't see an endgame for this plea deal for Remington, it should have been appealed to death.  It's funny, no one crying about judicial activism here, when this is one of the most blatant examples of I've ever seen.  The argument that "consider your man-card reissued" is so inflammatory that any reasonable person would know it would incite a mass shooting, or any shooting, is one of the dumbest legal arguments outside the Twinkie defense and affluenza.

[Dill]

(02-16-2022, 09:32 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Didn't even know they did ads for guns. I figured it was kind of like tobacco.

Here's the kind of add in question:



Real men can stand up to grade school students:





Marketing to a segment of U.S. gun culture.

[Belsnickel]

(02-17-2022, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't see it being a victory at all.  The CT judge clearly ignored federal law in allowing this lawsuit to go forward.  I can't see an endgame for this plea deal for Remington, it should have been appealed to death.  It's funny, no one crying about judicial activism here, when this is one of the most blatant examples of I've ever seen.  The argument that "consider your man-card reissued" is so inflammatory that any reasonable person would know it would incite a mass shooting, or any shooting, is one of the dumbest legal arguments outside the Twinkie defense and affluenza.

Didn't SCOTUS refuse to hear the appeal, essentially endorsing this particular avenue of attack?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-17-2022, 06:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Didn't SCOTUS refuse to hear the appeal, essentially endorsing this particular avenue of attack?

I'm not sure, but I don't believe so.  I'll have to check, but it seems like a very wormy end run on federal law.  Dill did us the favor of posting the add in question, can any reasonable person think that ad would incite a mass shooting, or any shooting?  As for settling, I don't think you'd come anywhere close to finding an impartial jury who decides the case on the law when it comes to Sandy Hook parents.  It's way too emotionally disturbing, and thus subject to a jury who decides based on said emotion instead of the actual law.

[CKwi88]

(02-17-2022, 06:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Here's the kind of add in question:



Real men can stand up to grade school students:





Marketing to a segment of U.S. gun culture.

That is cringey as f**k. Really capitalizing on fragile/toxic masculinity.

[CKwi88]

(02-17-2022, 06:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Didn't SCOTUS refuse to hear the appeal, essentially endorsing this particular avenue of attack?

It's literally in the OP 

[jmccracky]

(02-17-2022, 06:23 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That is cringey as f**k. Really capitalizing on fragile/toxic masculinity.

It totally is. And it's gross. However, SSF has a good point. How can you even prove that those adds caused mass shootings etc. I like guns. Been around them all my life (although I picked guitars as my hobby lol). That add cracks me up though. Like....cringe 101. I'm gonna go eat some steak with some vegetarian....I mean, manly meaty mushrooms. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-17-2022, 06:23 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That is cringey as f**k. Really capitalizing on fragile/toxic masculinity.

(02-17-2022, 06:54 PM)jmccracky Wrote: It totally is. And it's gross. However, SSF has a good point. How can you even prove that those adds caused mass shootings etc. I like guns. Been around them all my life (although I picked guitars as my hobby lol). That add cracks me up though. Like....cringe 101. I'm gonna go eat some steak with some vegetarian....I mean, manly meaty mushrooms. 

Yeah, the adds are definitely douche chill inducing, but inciting a mass shooter?  That's a bridge way to effing far.  Like I said, and stand by, this was a bullshit workaround the federal law.  I have a hard time being harsh with Sandy Hook families, what they suffered should never happen to anyone, but blaming Remington for it is inane to the point of ridiculousness.  I suppose every gun add will now need a disclaimer at the bottom, just like every car add showing high speeds and reckless maneuvers.  Problem solved, except the mass shooting, which wasn't caused by this add and anyone who thinks it was is delusional.

[jmccracky]

(02-17-2022, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, the adds are definitely douche chill inducing, but inciting a mass shooter?  That's a bridge way to effing far.  Like I said, and stand by, this was a bullshit workaround the federal law.  I have a hard time being harsh with Sandy Hook families, what they suffered should never happen to anyone, but blaming Remington for it is inane to the point of ridiculousness.  I suppose every gun add will now need a disclaimer at the bottom, just like every car add showing high speeds and reckless maneuvers.  Problem solved, except the mass shooting, which wasn't caused by this add and anyone who thinks it was is delusional.

It becomes a question of how far do they wanna go with it? Could be endless, right?

Reminds me of the lunatics that went after Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest for messages in their songs. "It says shoot shoot shoot backwards!". Blaming the music. I don't care if the song did say shoot, even forward. That didn't cause those kids to kill themselves. It's a lot deeper than that. Didn't we learn anything from Dee Snider? 

[Belsnickel]

Ok, first off, folks, it's "ad," with one "d."

Second off, I don't disagree with SSF on this, but this is the same thing that canceled the Marlboro Man and Joe Cool so it shouldn't be surprising. Joe Cool wasn't putting cigarettes in the mouths of teens, but that was the way society viewed it. What frustrates me the most about this situation, though, is we already only really see these ads in places where the firearm community is, already. Someone's not picking up an issue of Guns & Ammo and going "well NOW I want a gun!" They picked it up because they already had in interest in the pastime. Blaming these ads is like blaming Fleshlight for a dude buying one after walking into the sex shop. He was already in there and interested in the thing. The stuff on the shelves just helped him choose between Asa Akira and Lana Rhoades.

[jmccracky]

(02-17-2022, 08:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, first off, folks, it's "ad," with one "d."

Second off, I don't disagree with SSF on this, but this is the same thing that canceled the Marlboro Man and Joe Cool so it shouldn't be surprising. Joe Cool wasn't putting cigarettes in the mouths of teens, but that was the way society viewed it. What frustrates me the most about this situation, though, is we already only really see these ads in places where the firearm community is, already. Someone's not picking up an issue of Guns & Ammo and going "well NOW I want a gun!" They picked it up because they already had in interest in the pastime. Blaming these ads is like blaming Fleshlight for a dude buying one after walking into the sex shop. He was already in there and interested in the thing. The stuff on the shelves just helped him choose between Asa Akira and Lana Rhoades.

Phone must've corrected to adds. That's a pet peeve of mine. Lol

[Dill]

(02-17-2022, 06:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure, but I don't believe so.  I'll have to check, but it seems like a very wormy end run on federal law.  Dill did us the favor of posting the add in question, can any reasonable person think that ad would incite a mass shooting, or any shooting?  As for settling, I don't think you'd come anywhere close to finding an impartial jury who decides the case on the law when it comes to Sandy Hook parents.  It's way too emotionally disturbing, and thus subject to a jury who decides based on said emotion instead of the actual law.

Too busy at the moment to weigh in on this, but I do want to say there are many more adds in question, not just the ones I posted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2022, 06:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Too busy at the moment to weigh in on this, but I do want to say there are many more adds in question, not just the ones I posted.

I will await the others.  I have to say the ones I haven't seen would have to be far more egregious for me to understand the logic behind this lawsuit.

[NATI BENGALS]

All those ads sound like humans are the target. What am I hunting with those?