Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington

Irwin

Irwin

Well-known Member
Location
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Most of you have probably seen this story on the news or in news articles. Remington agreed to pay $73 million to the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass murder. Here's a link if you haven't:
https://apnews.com/article/sandy-ho...n-settlement-e53b95d398ee9b838afc06275a4df403

The plaintiffs won their case by showing the Remington targeted young men when their advertised the Bushmaster, yet there was no evidence that advertising had any effect on the case.

“The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanza’s decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes,” the group said in a statement.

So how on earth did they win their case? Remington was marketing a product that it was legally allowed to sell. So how are they liable for damages when the product was used as intended? I don't get it.
 

Irwin said:
The plaintiffs won their case by showing the Remington targeted young men when their advertised the Bushmaster, yet there was no evidence that advertising had any effect on the case.
Click to expand...
I always hate seeing this kind of thing. It seems like a kind of legal extorsion, like it or not the Bushmaster rifles were a legal product.

Now I don't like it. I am a gun owner and a hunter, but I see no need for these assault type rifles. For legitimate hunting purposes I am not sure even a semi-automatic gun is necessary. I don't own one.

My preference however is to make these guns illegal or if not don't trouble the gun makers with lawsuits...
 
Nathan said:
Yep, $73M is a drop in the bucket compared to Remington's profits.
Click to expand...

They are bankrupt, filed in 2020, various parts of the company were sold off to seven companies. The insurers settled, to minimize their losses versus a jury finding. Most likely based on the remaining assets set aside by the bankruptcy judge. The Connecticut law is pretty vague concerning marketing practices, placing a brand name firearm in a violent video game was a bad idea. They did some other stupid stuff too, the legal team was incompetent.
 
Deep Breathe here by me. I do have very strong opinions on this sort of matter, but I have over the years exhausted my views on this matter and spoke on this sort of thing many times over the past 20 years. No matter what I say or anyone says here or no matter how many millions of dollars given by the Remington company there are many lives lost senselessly that cannot be brought back by any amount of dollars or what people say. Yes , I do get upset over this sort of issue very easily as I was in the school building as a teacher on April 20th, 1999 when the Columbine Shootings occurred. There isn't a day that doesn't go by since then that I do not think about that day and the 15 lives lost that day. So my view is a bit skewed I suppose on this matter and I will just leave it at that and let everyone else give what they would like on the subject.
 
Signe The Survivor said:
Deep Breathe here by me. I do have very strong opinions on this sort of matter, but I have over the years exhausted my views on this matter and spoke on this sort of thing many times over the past 20 years. No matter what I say or anyone says here or no matter how many millions of dollars given by the Remington company there are many lives lost senselessly that cannot be brought back by any amount of dollars or what people say. Yes , I do get upset over this sort of issue very easily as I was in the school building as a teacher on April 20th, 1999 when the Columbine Shootings occurred. There isn't a day that doesn't go by since then that I do not think about that day and the 15 lives lost that day. So my view is a bit skewed I suppose on this matter and I will just leave it at that and let everyone else give what they would like on the subject.
Click to expand...
I think we are on opposite sides so we are technically biased in our own ways. I also don't want to comment much on the matter for the same reason.
 
Signe The Survivor said:
Deep Breathe here by me. I do have very strong opinions on this sort of matter, but I have over the years exhausted my views on this matter and spoke on this sort of thing many times over the past 20 years. No matter what I say or anyone says here or no matter how many millions of dollars given by the Remington company there are many lives lost senselessly that cannot be brought back by any amount of dollars or what people say. Yes , I do get upset over this sort of issue very easily as I was in the school building as a teacher on April 20th, 1999 when the Columbine Shootings occurred. There isn't a day that doesn't go by since then that I do not think about that day and the 15 lives lost that day. So my view is a bit skewed I suppose on this matter and I will just leave it at that and let everyone else give what they would like on the subject.
Click to expand...
I respect your views on this sad and serious topic, and I am glad you are still alive to give your opinion since being up close and personal to a first school shooting at Columbine in Colorado. That was a shock to us all. Tragically, since then, these horrific school shootings and killings of our children have become routine and taken lightly.

My heart goes out to the families of all those students, teachers, etc. who have lost their lives through violent shootings. I am not anti-gun when it comes to responsible gun owners in the US. I am absolutely against gun nutter killers, who kill innocent people in schools, churches, synagogues, supermarkets, concerts, etc. The NRA has become corrupt and political over the years, and the gun makers have become greedy.

Careless and ignorant gun owners, the mentally ill and drug addicted, the racists and violent haters have amplified this situation. I'd like this killing to get reeled in, but honestly, at this point in time, I'm not very hopeful. :(
 
I've been a gun owner and hunter for decades. However, I've never had any desire to buy an "assault rifle", which has the sole purpose of killing as many as possible, as fast as possible. I'm 100% in favor of private gun ownership, but feel that more controls need to be implemented to limit the sales/ownership of these kinds of guns.

I'm undecided on this lawsuit. I agree that gun companies should Not target their advertisements to those who might feel they can enhance their "manhood" by owning a gun. However, this kind of lawsuit could also be applied to auto manufacturers when one of their products is involved with causing a major casualty highway wreck.
 
Paco Dennis said:
Click to expand...

It is not the Parkland families but the Sandy Hook families that sued Remington so this guy doesn't even know what's he talking about. Or most likely he can't keep up due to the number of mass shootings that have taken place in our country. The Parkland families should actually do the same. Good for these parents that lost Elementary School children due to Remington's marketing practices. The settlement is nothing compared to losing a child.

A big part of the lawsuit was aimed at uncovering Remington's marketing practices. And if only a few loonies buy into it that is still enough to kill multitudes of people.


remington.jpeg

I'm not against gun ownership, but I don't need a Bushmaster to make me feel like a "man".
 
Last edited:
Irwin said:
Most of you have probably seen this story on the news or in news articles. Remington agreed to pay $73 million to the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass murder. Here's a link if you haven't:
https://apnews.com/article/sandy-ho...n-settlement-e53b95d398ee9b838afc06275a4df403

The plaintiffs won their case by showing the Remington targeted young men when their advertised the Bushmaster, yet there was no evidence that advertising had any effect on the case.

“The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanza’s decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes,” the group said in a statement.

So how on earth did they win their case? Remington was marketing a product that it was legally allowed to sell. So how are they liable for damages when the product was used as intended? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Adam Lanza did not steal the rifle. His mother bought it for him - along with several other firearms & ammunition, while knowing he was seriously mentally ill & could not legally own firearms. She also took her son to shooting ranges on many occasions. She was an idiot.
 
Signe The Survivor said:
Deep Breathe here by me. I do have very strong opinions on this sort of matter, but I have over the years exhausted my views on this matter and spoke on this sort of thing many times over the past 20 years. No matter what I say or anyone says here or no matter how many millions of dollars given by the Remington company there are many lives lost senselessly that cannot be brought back by any amount of dollars or what people say. Yes , I do get upset over this sort of issue very easily as I was in the school building as a teacher on April 20th, 1999 when the Columbine Shootings occurred. There isn't a day that doesn't go by since then that I do not think about that day and the 15 lives lost that day. So my view is a bit skewed I suppose on this matter and I will just leave it at that and let everyone else give what they would like on the subject.
Click to expand...
Harris and Klebold used 9mm guns and a shotgun. 9mm is handgun caliber. There would have been far more fatalities had they used an AR-15 rifle, which is the weapon of choice for today's school shootings. From what I remember, the AR-15s were banned during the '90s, which was a good thing. The law might have saved lives in the case of the Columbine shootings.
 
Irwin said:
Harris and Klebold used 9mm guns and a shotgun. 9mm is handgun caliber. There would have been far more fatalities had they used an AR-15 rifle, which is the weapon of choice for today's school shootings. From what I remember, the AR-15s were banned during the '90s, which was a good thing. The law might have saved lives in the case of the Columbine shootings.
Click to expand...
AR-15s were never outright banned then. They only put restrictions on what attachments could be equipped such as no pistol grip, no folding stock, so on and so forth.

AR-15 can be chambered in many, many different calibers. So one rifle can be as powerful as a regular handgun while another can cause as much damage as a hunting rifle. Not to mention different ammo types such as full metal jacket (FMJ), hollow point (HP), etc. An AR-15 has pretty much the same fire rate as a regular handgun. They're both semi auto. AR-15 is more accurate than a handgun but you sacrifice maneuverability for it.

What happened in Colorado forced the state to limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds, same as for handguns. I know I've been talking technicality here but what I'm trying to say is there are no such things as assault rifles for civilians. Real assault rifles are leaps and bounds beyond what civilians can get. An AR-15 is nothing but a handgun you can shoulder and fire just a little further while limiting your movement at the same time.

To be clear, your statement is true. I'm just expanding on it. I was puzzled by the 100 round magazines they used just as you were. No one needs that much ammo for self defense unless you're fighting an army. And that the law has been changed to reflect that.
 
I got my first gun at age nine , my dad took me to the woods for two weeks taught me gun safety , came in handy when I learn to shoot the M-1, M-14, M-16, shotgun, M-60 in the Marine Core, My dad always said its the person shooting the gun, thats responible, the gun can not put the safety on!
 

Attachments

  • John Mizell Book Signing At Kent's Market In Roy, May 12, 2018_Medium_Moment (2).jpg
    John Mizell Book Signing At Kent's Market In Roy, May 12, 2018_Medium_Moment (2).jpg
    293 KB · Views: 3
RFW said:
AR-15s were never outright banned then. They only put restrictions on what attachments could be equipped such as no pistol grip, no folding stock, so on and so forth.

AR-15 can be chambered in many, many different calibers. So one rifle can be as powerful as a regular handgun while another can cause as much damage as a hunting rifle. Not to mention different ammo types such as full metal jacket (FMJ), hollow point (HP), etc. An AR-15 has pretty much the same fire rate as a regular handgun. They're both semi auto. AR-15 is more accurate than a handgun but you sacrifice maneuverability for it.

What happened in Colorado forced the state to limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds, same as for handguns. I know I've been talking technicality here but what I'm trying to say is there are no such things as assault rifles for civilians. Real assault rifles are leaps and bounds beyond what civilians can get. An AR-15 is nothing but a handgun you can shoulder and fire just a little further while limiting your movement at the same time.

To be clear, your statement is true. I'm just expanding on it. I was puzzled by the 100 round magazines they used just as you were. No one needs that much ammo for self defense unless you're fighting an army. And that the law has been changed to reflect that.
Click to expand...
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and isn't considered an assault rifle because it's not fully automatic. The same rifle in fully automatic form is the M-16, which can be fired in single shot, semi-automatic, or fully automatic mode.

The AR-15 is usually chambered for a .223 Remington cartridge, which is a small bullet with a much larger case than what would be found in a handgun cartridge, so it has much higher firepower. From what I remember, that's what the Aurora theater shooter used.

A .22 bullet fired from a pistol has a velocity of about 1,000 feet/sec whereas a .223 fired from an AR-15 goes around 3,200 feet/sec, so more than three times the velocity. I believe there are different size cases for .22 bullets such as a magnum which would increase velocity, but none come anywhere near what you get from an AR-15.

With the extreme velocity from an AR-15, when the little bullet hits its target, it starts to tumble and just rips apart everything it touches, which is why it's so deadly. There's often nothing but shreds for surgeons to try to stitch back together.

I believe you can get hunting rifles that fire the .223 Remington, but they don't have the high-capacity magazines capabilities so you can't get off as many rounds as quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFW
Irwin said:
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and isn't considered an assault rifle because it's not fully automatic. The same rifle in fully automatic form is the M-16, which can be fired in single shot, semi-automatic, or fully automatic mode.

The AR-15 is usually chambered for a .223 Remington cartridge, which is a small bullet with a much larger case than what would be found in a handgun cartridge, so it has much higher firepower. From what I remember, that's what the Aurora theater shooter used.

A .22 bullet fired from a pistol has a velocity of about 1,000 feet/sec whereas a .223 fired from an AR-15 goes around 3,200 feet/sec, so more than three times the velocity. I believe there are different size cases for .22 bullets such as a magnum which would increase velocity, but none come anywhere near what you get from an AR-15.

With the extreme velocity from an AR-15, when the little bullet hits its target, it starts to tumble and just rips apart everything it touches, which is why it's so deadly. There's often nothing but shreds for surgeons to try to stitch back together.

I believe you can get hunting rifles that fire the .223 Remington, but they don't have the high-capacity magazines capabilities so you can't get off as many rounds as quickly.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point. Although I would argue that the .223 and essentially 5.56 are designed to wound rather than kill outright. It fragments on impact thus causing more damage but it also doesn't penetrate and cause more harm to other organs beyond the initial fragmentation. So I'd say it's a matter of perspective. That's why it's great for home defense where if you miss a shot, it isn't likely to go through a drywall.
Of all the harm it can do, I still think it is perfectly legal and should stay that way. I think the lives saved by it are more than the lives lost.
And I still don't think AR-15s are a big bad wolf that the media really wants the uninitiated.
 
Irwin said:
Harris and Klebold used 9mm guns and a shotgun. 9mm is handgun caliber. There would have been far more fatalities had they used an AR-15 rifle, which is the weapon of choice for today's school shootings. From what I remember, the AR-15s were banned during the '90s, which was a good thing. The law might have saved lives in the case of the Columbine shootings.
Click to expand...
They used Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage Springfield 67H Shotgun, 9 x19 mm Intratec TEC-9 and a Stevens 311D Double Barrel Shotgun. I think the law acted appropriately in the midst of the chaos that was that day for sure. The loss of 15 that awful day was enough in my opinion and I am glad that is was not anymore. There were also those who were injured and the many that will never forget that awful day. That goes for any of these senseless shootings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RFW
Signe The Survivor said:
They used Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage Springfield 67H Shotgun, 9 x19 mm Intratec TEC-9 and a Stevens 311D Double Barrel Shotgun. I think the law acted appropriately in the midst of the chaos that was that day for sure. The loss of 15 that awful day was enough in my opinion and I am glad that is was not anymore. There were also those who were injured and the many that will never forget that awful day. That goes for any of these senseless shootings.
Click to expand...
I want to say I appreciate your input on this and that it doesn't go unnoticed.

Edited to reflect the updated quote.
 
Last edited:
RFW said:
TEC-9 is considered a handgun chambered in 9mm, hence the number. He was correct on that. But I want to say I appreciate your input on this and that it doesn't go unnoticed.
Click to expand...
I actually altered my previous post to the weapons that the two boys used. The actual weapons itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFW
RFW said:
Parenting has gone so far down the drain. I have no idea what people teach kids these days, if they ever do.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, parents of kids with mental issues are in denial & want to show that their kids are normal, so they'll encourage & enable them to do things that normal kids do. I've known parents like that. "See? My kid is so responsible, he can have his own gun."
 
Nathan said:
Yep, $73M is a drop in the bucket compared to Remington's profits.
Click to expand...
Remington declared bankruptcy in 2018. Much of the company has been broken up and the profitable pieces sold off. It's doubtful any of that $73 million will ever be paid out by an empty shell of the original company.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top