I feel like there was the first nail put in my coffin.
Saw on this evenings TV news Remington Firearms knuckles under to being pressured with a court suit pretaining to the Sandy Hook shooting.
My personal view is some big anti-gun groups helped the push of this.
Settlement of multi millions .
6 Likes
We will see how much the parents and or family get or will the lawyers take most of it.
6 Likes
73 million I saw, and thought they’d settled on 35 million. Going to watch “Armed Attorneys” on YouTube as I saw they have commentary on the slippery slope this represents.
I don’t care who gets what, the fact it’s coming from a manufacturer who didn’t manufacture a defective product opens up a Pandora’s box.
12 Likes
Yeah saw it also 97 million. Just because they made the firearm. Total crap!! So if we can’t take them from you we will make them to costly for them to be made. This is a sad day for us here in the USA. So the next drunk driver who kills someone that car manufacturer is going to be held for damages is that the road we are on or the makers of the alcohol we will be taking them to court? Or the maker of knives, bats, or any other instruments that cause death? Very slippery slope they have started us on.
11 Likes
Got the link
8 Likes
@Chris122 , I’ve been saying that about drunk drivers for 40 years. I agree with your views.
6 Likes
Good Armed Attorney’s video. Do you think people will now boycott Remington Firearm products? Will Remington go bankrupt because of their decision?
I know I’ll be watching like a hawk.
4 Likes
Everyone is angry in current state world and wants their pound of flesh, right? Sickening.
4 Likes
I hope the money from this settlement provides for better protection for our children in schools. We can’t just blame Remington this is everyone’s responsibility. If the money from this settlement doesn’t go toward protection it would mean that these children died in vain and I don’t think that will happen. I think there is more to it than what is made public and I hope Remington is rewarded for their generosity.
4 Likes
The families have also “obtained and can make public thousands of pages of internal company documents that prove Remington’s wrongdoing and carry important lessons for helping to prevent future mass shootings,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys said in a news release.
I’m curious how they define “wrongdoing”
How?
3 Likes
That’s terribly unfortunate. First Remington is a bankrupt company, where did they find $70M sitting around? Second how does paying these families $7-$8M each making anyone safer?
10 Likes
And this money is just part of the “guns are bad” narrative, so no, it won’t make anyone safer.
Another vid explains my thinking…this one quite ironic.
I wonder with the Remington surrender, if some members of their board are counting on an implosion, then profiting by being straw buyers in a fire sale. Seen some crazy crap in corporate buyouts and takeovers, and saw a lot of managers make 10-30 years salary overnight at Colt right before their 1985 bankruptcy. No worries, you folks paying federal income tax helped create their windfall, and kept Colt in business.
I’d hate being a Remington worker bee right now, and yeah, not a fan before, besides their 700 series, and definitely not buying their product now. Corporate shenanigans, something’s up.
4 Likes
They didn’t settle because they manufactured the gun. They settled, because of the marketing strategy. That was the grounds on which the judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Yes, I know, the lame stream media won’t acknowledge that point, but, it’s still the facts.
7 Likes
I don’t understand the marketing thing. Can’t hep but notice I go to, say, Chevrolet’s website, and they advertise the Corvette street car as a top speed of 192 mph with a quarter mile of 11.2 seconds. If Remington can go for 70+ million, just think what all of these automakers can go for.
3 Likes
After reading more about the settlement I’ve come to believe that it is more about advertising than the gun itself.
3 Likes
And since marketing was the grounds, Remington stood a chance of losing in court. Which would have set a precedent that could open the door for suits against all the others. Eventually bankrupting the entire American firearm manufacturing industry?
I believe settling avoids setting any legal precedence? Heck, Remington was probably getting calls from all the other manufacturers urging them to settle.
Does suck though!
5 Likes
I just read an article from Bearing Arms that point out the insurance company settled, not Remington. Again, it makes little difference. The media will spin it to make it sound like Remington admitted fault.
6 Likes
Yes, it typically is less expensive to settle than fight in court, especially on an emotionally-charged issue. The worst of this is that the “judge” ruled against PLCAA - federal law - to make this occur.
6 Likes
This one has never made any sense to me. Only thing I can see is the insurance companies wanted to close the books on the “Old Remington” and it sure cost them to do it. How did a Judge see any sense on the claim of marketing? Adam Lanza stole that gun, Remington (Bushmaster) never marketed that gun and sold it to him.
3 Likes
I recognized the case was about marketing. I never saw the incidences of this. Regardless, I find this settlement and the impact on Remington very disturbing.
1 Like