This bankrupt company did not have a sugar-daddy advocate to pursue the lawsuit. Thus, the $73 Million payout was directed by their insurer. Should they have fought this using the PLCAA law? That only works if your pockets are deep enough to pay the attorney fees and a losing settlement. Even the insurance company for the mother of the shooter decided to pay out $1.5MM to the victim's families, after the insurer realized that fighting against the payout was a losing cause, and bad publicity for the company.

So, if the government passes a law that IN THE PREAMBLE states the law is going to increase safety and stop criminals from getting guns, why can't we sue the lawmakers when criminals illegally get and use guns?

Seems like the same standards should apply.  Truth in advertising.

The underlying cause of mass shootings is mental illness. And, yes, seeking revenge for bullying or affront for one's opinion (e.g., your team lost), is also a form of mental illness. Before we go into panic mode about the Remington settlement, we need to remember that no suit has ever been won in a court of law (after appeals have been exhausted). The Nevada Supreme court tossed the suit against gun manufacturers, in 2021.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/03/1061384029/nevada-court-sides-with-gunmakers-in-las-vegas-shooting-lawsuit

The next big case against mass shooters will happen against Ethan Crumbley and his family. That has mental illness written all over it, with a heavy dollop of parental neglect and adultery.

And suddenly mass shootings became big business

so now can the new owners of Rem, Vista Outdoors sue the media for liable ?

so now can the new owners of Rem, Vista Outdoors sue the media for liable ?

CNN is on top of the list. They have far more money than Remington (which is lean), Smith&Wesson, Ruger, etc. NRA is not doing very much to preserve the manufacturers, and seems more concerned about its own survival. Why don't they put out an ad thanking S&W for helping a housewife protect her home against robbers and rapists? Guns save lives.

The only part I kept hearing in reports was that advertising aimed at kids was a big factor but no specifics. How bad was this advertising that it could be implicated as causing or encouraging that kid to go kill a bunch of innocent people?

The only part I kept hearing in reports was that advertising aimed at kids was a big factor but no specifics. How bad was this advertising that it could be implicated as causing or encouraging that kid to go kill a bunch of innocent people?

Not bad at all. Politics 100% is the factor.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The only part I kept hearing in reports was that advertising aimed at kids was a big factor but no specifics. How bad was this advertising that it could be implicated as causing or encouraging that kid to go kill a bunch of innocent people?

After a one-year investigation and producing a report on the massacre, the police never found evidence that provided a solid motive for the shooter's decision to go to Sandy Hook Elementary School that day.

In the meantime, the speculation and blame-games have never stopped.  In 2012, several firearm manufacturers agreed to pull a variety of firearm ads from all sorts of media forms at the request of the state and federal government.  This may have been construed by the plaintiffs as an admission that the ads factored into the massacre somehow.

Some of the pulled ads showed a woman in a bikini running from zombies who had just broken through her poolside fence. 

Another had you take an online questionnaire, and if all your answers didn't focus on firearms being a positive force in your life, then you'd have your "man card revoked."

Many showed firearms as just something fun to own and use, as well as something the whole family could own and enjoy -- including the kids.

This link shows quite a few ads over the many years, and some of the more recent ones that were removed in 2012.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12?op=1

I imagine this is why both sides agreed to settle.  There was no actual evidence the ads in any way influenced Lanza, and at the same time, the manufacturers could agree some of the ads were unrelated to actual, legitimate reasons why someone would want a firearm.  I think they are unrelated to the shooting, but appearances are everything when it comes to juries and stockholders.

Plus, Obama made the gun makers super wealthy right after the Sandy Hook shooting by vowing to ban "Assault Weapons."  It was almost impossible to find any ARs, AKs or other "military style" semi-auto rifles in stock after that first week unless they were priced at 2-6 times the MSRP.  I think the amount the manufacturers settled for was a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue the "Obama Gun Sales" years made for them.

Pandora’s box has officially been opened! Stand by for heavy rolls in the firearms industry.

Pandora’s box has officially be opened! Stand by for heavy rolls in the firearms industry.

That's what the gun control zealots want us to think.

In truth, there was no ruling, so nothing has changed.

There was a settlement, but it had nothing to do with the product (firearm).  It was a narrow exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, having to do with the way firearms are marketed.

Here's a really good rundown on this issue:

There was a local commercial on today about smoking/vaping they stated how it targets kids.  Is there a lawsuit for this and a settlement?  Just wondering since that was the basis of the above lawsuit and it's marketing.

Another factoid about the Topic settlement:  the payment is being made by 3 (IIRC) insurance carriers.  There's nothing being paid by the company since they went out of business in 2020 and sold off all of their assets.

Any talk of how the lawsuit was the cause of Remington folding is incorrect.

Beginning in late 2017, Remington began bankruptcy planning, having suffered declining sales
and reputation damage from an August 2017 exposé on the CBS news program “60 Minutes”
about X-Mark Pro trigger defects linked to several deaths,[29] and amassed some $950 million
worth of debt.[30][31] The low sales and debt were blamed on either a reduction in "panic-buying",
or diminishing quality and reputation.[32] Remington filed for bankruptcy in March 2018.[33]

Remington exited bankruptcy on May 17, 2018, less than two months later. The company's quick
exit was due to a pre-approved restructuring plan supported by 97% of its creditors, which cancelled
all shares of common stock issued prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings, and
issuance of new shares to convert over $775 million of company debt into equity.[34]

On July 28, 2020, it filed again for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[9] During the bankruptcy auction
in September 2020, Remington Outdoor Company was sold in parts. The Remington Arms business
and the non-Marlin firearms business was sold to Roundhill Group LLC.[46] Remington's ammunition
business, brand name and trademarks were sold to Vista Outdoor.[11]

The lawsuit was filed after the 2012 shooting.  It was dismissed in 2016 pursuant to the PLCAA.  In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the suit could proceed under the "wrongful marketing" claim as an exception to the PLCAA.

In 2014, Remington announced their plans to relocate the New York plant to Alabama after passage of the NY SAFE Act, which banned the AR rifles made there.  In 2021, they announced the relocation of their global headquarters to Georgia.

Then there's this:

Herein lies a real problem for the company, and one that helped strike the death knoll, for it.
Consumer confidence in the products started to fall off. It was not long ago that anyone would
dare question the quality of things like the 870 pump-action shotgun, but yet it happened.
Check internet chat rooms, gun shows, sporting goods retails and more and you started hearing
more and more about failures right out of the box. I actually was close to buying a brand-new
20-gauge 870 because of the deal on it, only to have the internals basically fall out when we
assembled it in the store. Whether justified or not, one person being vocal about a bad experience
in the age of social media can bring a company down pretty quick.

Quality control issues became a noose around the neck of Remington and it’s holdings. It’s hard
to accept, especially when most of us have had great experiences with the company. I can say
with absolute certainty that everyone I ever met associated with Remington and its various branches,
is a first-class professional and a great person. When I went on a waterfowl hunting trip last year,
and Remington supplied the guns and ammo, we had issues with the guns jamming. The Remington
representatives were mortified over it, even experiencing it themselves. Who gets the blame there?

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2020/10/01/what-happened-to-remington/

So, with poor sales, quality control concerns from consumers, a previous bankruptcy, relocation of factories to more "gun friendly" states, and large costs from  moving their headquarters and adding a factory and R&D facility in Georgia, they accumulated more debt than their investors were comfortable with.  They had no other choice but to declare bankruptcy again.

That's what the gun control zealots want us to think.

In truth, there was no ruling, so nothing has changed.

There was a settlement, but it had nothing to do with the product (firearm).  It was a narrow exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, having to do with the way firearms are marketed.

Here's a really good rundown on this issue:

Let it play out a couple of years down the line….I hope you’re rite but me thinks this will play out differently…

After a one-year investigation and producing a report on the massacre, the police never found evidence that provided a solid motive for the shooter's decision to go to Sandy Hook Elementary School that day.

In the meantime, the speculation and blame-games have never stopped.  In 2012, several firearm manufacturers agreed to pull a variety of firearm ads from all sorts of media forms at the request of the state and federal government.  This may have been construed by the plaintiffs as an admission that the ads factored into the massacre somehow.

Some of the pulled ads showed a woman in a bikini running from zombies who had just broken through her poolside fence. 

Another had you take an online questionnaire, and if all your answers didn't focus on firearms being a positive force in your life, then you'd have your "man card revoked."

Many showed firearms as just something fun to own and use, as well as something the whole family could own and enjoy -- including the kids.

This link shows quite a few ads over the many years, and some of the more recent ones that were removed in 2012.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12?op=1

I imagine this is why both sides agreed to settle.  There was no actual evidence the ads in any way influenced Lanza, and at the same time, the manufacturers could agree some of the ads were unrelated to actual, legitimate reasons why someone would want a firearm.  I think they are unrelated to the shooting, but appearances are everything when it comes to juries and stockholders.

Plus, Obama made the gun makers super wealthy right after the Sandy Hook shooting by vowing to ban "Assault Weapons."  It was almost impossible to find any ARs, AKs or other "military style" semi-auto rifles in stock after that first week unless they were priced at 2-6 times the MSRP.  I think the amount the manufacturers settled for was a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue the "Obama Gun Sales" years made for them.

So you're saying zombie defense isn't a justified reason to own firearms?!

So you're saying zombie defense isn't a justified reason to own firearms?!

Did I say that?  I don't see where I said that.

I said, "the manufacturers could agree some of the ads were unrelated to actual, legitimate reasons why someone would want a firearm."

If you've watched CNN and MSNBC mouthing the same DNC-produced talking points, you have to believe Zombies are real.

Did I say that?  I don't see where I said that.

I said, "the manufacturers could agree some of the ads were unrelated to actual, legitimate reasons why someone would want a firearm."

If you've watched CNN and MSNBC mouthing the same DNC-produced talking points, you have to believe Zombies are real.

I was making a joke, you mentioned an advertisement that had zombies.

I was making a joke, you mentioned an advertisement that had zombies.

Thanks for the unnecessary and obtuse explanation.

Joke acknowledged upon transmission and receipt.

Reply sent in same vein.

#Swoosh!!   

Thanks for the unnecessary and obtuse explanation.

Joke acknowledged upon transmission and receipt.

Reply sent in same vein.

#Swoosh!!