Remington to pay compensation to Sandy Hook victims
- Thread starter kenbro
- Start date
Forgive me but as horrific as this was, I cannot see how a maker of the gun used in the 'massacre' is in any way to blame for what happened.
School security ? Police processes to own a firearm. The man who sold the firearm perhaps wrongly, if it was owned by the perp. The man who owned the firearm and did not secure it, if the perp did not own it. Local law enforcement for holding back, if they did. In fact anyone but the gunmaker. I believe it could only happen in the USA and I wonder if it hangs on how 'attractive-looking' the gun might have been ?
My thoughts are very much with those who lost loved ones but is any compensation going to change that or is it their advocates who choose this course and thus it is maintained in the headlines so the event does not fade from the minds of anyone else.
I would really like to know why?
I have personal knowledge of one English case where a family pursued the driver of the vehicle their daughter died in because they felt they had grounds, apparently.
School security ? Police processes to own a firearm. The man who sold the firearm perhaps wrongly, if it was owned by the perp. The man who owned the firearm and did not secure it, if the perp did not own it. Local law enforcement for holding back, if they did. In fact anyone but the gunmaker. I believe it could only happen in the USA and I wonder if it hangs on how 'attractive-looking' the gun might have been ?
My thoughts are very much with those who lost loved ones but is any compensation going to change that or is it their advocates who choose this course and thus it is maintained in the headlines so the event does not fade from the minds of anyone else.
I would really like to know why?
I have personal knowledge of one English case where a family pursued the driver of the vehicle their daughter died in because they felt they had grounds, apparently.
Presumably there are also claims against the ammunition manufacturer or, if they were reloads, the bullet, powder and primer manufactures?
ColinJ
Well-Known Member
Setting quite a precedent here:
Reuters article - Remington to compensate victims
Remington Arms will pay $73 million to the families of five adults and four children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the families said, the first time a gunmaker has been held liable for a mass shooting in the United States
Reuters article - Remington to compensate victims
Remington Arms will pay $73 million to the families of five adults and four children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the families said, the first time a gunmaker has been held liable for a mass shooting in the United States
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Wow indeed!
On reading the article I’m wondering if the powers that be are now looking a long term strategy of pricing guns beyond the means of most people.
In addition to the 73 million paid out, there is a pending case of 10 billion!
Although the payout was covered by insurance policies, that money will be recovered by a hike in premiums
American citizens have the legal right to bear arms but they might not be able to afford them.
On reading the article I’m wondering if the powers that be are now looking a long term strategy of pricing guns beyond the means of most people.
In addition to the 73 million paid out, there is a pending case of 10 billion!
Although the payout was covered by insurance policies, that money will be recovered by a hike in premiums
American citizens have the legal right to bear arms but they might not be able to afford them.
Apparently they don’t use Remington stutzens in “Call of Duty” but rather the more tactical-like end of current production:
K
K
Looking at the reports of the case findings Huff post, 15th Feb 2022 it looks like it centered on how the principle firearm (AR15 clone) was marketed.Presumably there are also claims against the ammunition manufacturer or, if they were reloads, the bullet, powder and primer manufactures?
Wonder how many sports car manufacturers are now on the hook for any road death compensation claims?
Cumbrian 1
Well-Known Member
Exactly, how many different car manufacturers have had their brand promoted in violent car chases etc. This ruling is insane surely the only responsible party is the nutter pulling the trigger.
If I was cynical I would say this was pushed by Biden’s anti gun stance
If I was cynical I would say this was pushed by Biden’s anti gun stance
Remington have reached a $73m settlement with some of the Sandy Hook parents
However, a couple points need to be clarified:
1. Remington attempted to stop the proceedings by appealing to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to hear their appeal, thus allowing the case to continue and reach the settlement announced today
2. Arguably more important than the money is all the internal Remington documents which the plaintiffs claim show Remingtons misconduct will now be made public
3. Remington is bankrupt and will not be making any payout - the money is coming from their insurers -and that is the big problem for the gun industry, because after this judgement, insurance companies will be less likely to insure gun companies and if they do, the premiums will rocket - which in turn will force gun makers to increase prices.
I'm not taking sides here, but after all the mass shootings that have happened in the USA over the past few years, this was always going to happen.
When we have a multiple fatality shooting in the UK, gun laws get tougher.
In the USA, where the second amendment protects the right to bear arms, it's civil law that is more likely to bring change
Cheers
Bruce
However, a couple points need to be clarified:
1. Remington attempted to stop the proceedings by appealing to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to hear their appeal, thus allowing the case to continue and reach the settlement announced today
2. Arguably more important than the money is all the internal Remington documents which the plaintiffs claim show Remingtons misconduct will now be made public
3. Remington is bankrupt and will not be making any payout - the money is coming from their insurers -and that is the big problem for the gun industry, because after this judgement, insurance companies will be less likely to insure gun companies and if they do, the premiums will rocket - which in turn will force gun makers to increase prices.
I'm not taking sides here, but after all the mass shootings that have happened in the USA over the past few years, this was always going to happen.
When we have a multiple fatality shooting in the UK, gun laws get tougher.
In the USA, where the second amendment protects the right to bear arms, it's civil law that is more likely to bring change
Cheers
Bruce
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Back in 2017, the daughter of actor Paul Walker from the Fast and Furious movie franchise sued Porsche after he was killed in a high speed crash.
I don’t know the details but it concerned the possibility of a faulty seat belt. Despite the collision occurring at high speed and the car erupting into flames, she received an undisclosed sum.
Wonder if the people whose relatives got killed in the Boston Marathon bombing sued the company that made the pressure cooker from which the terrorist made the IED.
Or the lorry manufacturer whose product was used to murder innocent people at the Berlin Xmas market.
Or whoever made the backpack that carried the bomb in the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
Sadly firearms are a lightning rod for political and social scorn, yet it has been forgotten that they are tools and most working households owned at least one not long ago.
norcan
Well-Known Member
That doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable. I don’t think the gun industry does anyone a favour if a manufacturer is genuinely promoting its military-derived designs to the immature and insecure as a way to feel powerful and dominating.
It would be interesting to see the material in question, at least.
I mean, placing ads with a “consider your man card reissued” slogan into video games to sell an AR-15 clone does come across as being slightly irresponsible at best. What benefit is there from promoting guns that way?
Last edited:
Remington should have never caved in to this extortion. They were selling a lawful product. The model sold in this case was a heavy barrel target model which met the specifications for 600 meter matches under the long-expired Clinton era "Assault Weapons" ban.
Manufacturers of vehicles, knives, bats, hammers, hatchets, computers, cameras, guns and all other products which can be used by criminals are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products, unless they had reason to know the purchaser intended to use them illegally.
Because of attacks by authoritarian socialists on the natural, God-given, and Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, Congress has made this long-established legal principle in common law, to be also explicitly protected by federal legislation.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.
Manufacturers of vehicles, knives, bats, hammers, hatchets, computers, cameras, guns and all other products which can be used by criminals are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products, unless they had reason to know the purchaser intended to use them illegally.
Because of attacks by authoritarian socialists on the natural, God-given, and Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, Congress has made this long-established legal principle in common law, to be also explicitly protected by federal legislation.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.
Similar threads
