Can’t believe Remington is being hit

[luberhill]

https://www.fox21news.com/news/sandy-hook-families-settle-for-73m-with-gun-maker-remington/amp/

[DoubleDose]

Remington settled.  This may be a a bad precedent for the industry.  They were being sued under CT law for the way they marketed and advertised this AR.   The litigation assault (pun intended) on firearms, dealers, owners, and manufacturers from all angles is relentless.

[luberhill]

11 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

Remington settled.  This may be a a bad precedent for the industry.  They were being sued under CT law for the way they marketed and advertised this AR.   The litigation assault (pun intended) on firearms, dealers, owners, and manufacturers from all angles is relentless.

Yea I don’t like this 

[moog5050]

They are in bankruptcy.   I am sure this was needed to confirm a chpt 11 plan to stay open.   

[luberhill]

42 minutes ago, moog5050 said:

They are in bankruptcy.   I am sure this was needed to confirm a chpt 11 plan to stay open.   

They sold off the divisions

[Five Seasons]

I heard a blurb this morning that the number of ARs sold in the early 2000's was like 200,000 and when sandy hook happened it was 2M. The loophole here that "forced" remington to settle was the advertising thing.

But if we're all honest, that kind of revenue increase from advertising would be a record breaking marketing executives wet dream. 

The rise in AR popularity has 80% to do with social media and games like call of duty and action movies. Kids like me grew up playing them and now could finally own a "semi" version of our own and a pretty affordable price. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing a remington AR ad growing up because I didn't subscribe to guns and ammo and I would guess only a fraction the 2M new buyers did.

To pin this shooting on advertising of one company is asinine. It's no different than wnytrapper wrecking his new vette into a school bus and suing chevy because they marketed the car as "really freaking fast".

 

[ApexerER]

I have never seen an advertisement for an AR.  I would be willing to bet the whacko from Sandy Hook never did either. 

Are the victims of the Christmas parade going to settle with the car company that ran them over?

This opens up a whole can of worms regarding lawsuits....

[airedale]

Getting around the second amendment 101, and just the beginning, frivolous lawsuits, fees and licensing schemes, permits, insurance to own, banning lead ammo,  creating as many hurdles as possible making gun ownership as hard as they can.

Al

[Nomad]

45 minutes ago, Belo said:

I heard a blurb this morning that the number of ARs sold in the early 2000's was like 200,000 and when sandy hook happened it was 2M. The loophole here that "forced" remington to settle was the advertising thing.

But if we're all honest, that kind of revenue increase from advertising would be a record breaking marketing executives wet dream. 

The rise in AR popularity has 80% to do with social media and games like call of duty and action movies. Kids like me grew up playing them and now could finally own a "semi" version of our own and a pretty affordable price. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing a remington AR ad growing up because I didn't subscribe to guns and ammo and I would guess only a fraction the 2M new buyers did.

To pin this shooting on advertising of one company is asinine. It's no different than wnytrapper wrecking his new vette into a school bus and suing chevy because they marketed the car as "really freaking fast".

 

My future son in law plays a lot of those games, now me being a gun guy and well my daughter owning guns got him to move into real guns .

I got him a .22 rifle as a starter , right after that  he built an AR and AR pistol, because and I quote ,” I do real good with that gun online .”….. wtf 

[Five Seasons]

11 minutes ago, Nomad said:

My future son in law plays a lot of those games, now me being a gun guy and well my daughter owning guns got him to move into real guns .

I got him a .22 rifle as a starter , right after that  he built an AR and AR pistol, because and I quote ,” I do real good with that gun online .”….. wtf 

i honestly do see the issue. I play shooter games as well, my whole generation did growing up and many, in fact most still do. It's not really any different than reading about something or watching something and becoming more interested in it in the real world. The AR platform is popular with both military and civilians for a reason. It's easy "to be good" with it haha

[hueyjazz]

Remington would worry a jury trial would be made up of people that know nothing about firearms or their uses.  Every gun to the evening news is an "Assault Weapon".  How many people do you know that think an AR is a machine gun or can be easily made into one?   Press from a jury trial would be promoted as a quest against the evil empire.

I find it amazing that the media takes no credit for these massacres.  They always have to get into the family and friends of these losers have epitomizing their last moments in the spotlight.  Media doesn't spend much time on the victims, just body count.   They promote the AR as the weapon of choice for these losers.  And ever notice how each loser has to out-do the last loser in how heinous their atrocity is?  The media greatly influences the loser more than any Remington ad did.

New Zealand had it right.  Never call them by name or give press to the loser.  

[Robhuntandfish]

look at this in a different way ....... Who settled ?  Not exactly remington arms.  As Moog said this is in chapter 11.   So the insurance liability carrier settled.  So this is more precedent for insurance risk to firearms manufacturers and sales.  Then the insurance for these will now skyrocket and the insurance company increases their rates as this is extended risk.  Thus causing gun prices to increase.  Vicious cycle.   

[The_Real_TCIII]

You think the alcohol companies took notice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[phantom]

Wait I thought the Supreme Court ruled that gun manufacturers can't be sued if  people use there products to kill people ? Or does this not apply when the company is bankrupt ? I'm just curious when's the last time a knife manufacturer was sued because somebody stabbed to death a person with one of their knives?

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by phantom

[Grouse]

The SCOTUS did rule firearm makers cannot be sued when a criminal uses their guns in a crime.  Remington stupidly settled this suit.  They should have gone to court and it would've been a victory.  But it would've cost them at least twice what they settled for.  They've made a decision that will have huge ramifications for the entire industry, and other industries too, because they chose profit over freedom.  They could've sought industry cooperation to fight this thing as a unified organization, with the best interest of the industry in mind.  Instead, they have voted for their own demise.

[hueyjazz]

"The SCOTUS did rule firearm makers cannot be sued when a criminal uses their guns in a crime."

You mean hold the person responsible and not a tool???  Now your just talking crazy.

It wasn't Remington Arms that settle this lawsuit.  That entity is gone with another using the name.  The new owner didn't accept liability for this case.  It was the insurance company for Remington while they were manufacturing the Bushmaster that settled this case.  And their interest was to do it as cheaply as possible without impact to their name.  

[Grouse]

This pending lawsuit had a lot to do with Remington going out of business and selling off all of it's assets.