Thanks for the link. If the argument was that marketing made Remington liable, was there any proof that the shooter even knew of the marketing? If I remember correctly, he stole the gun from his mother, killed her, then went to the school. She bought the gun, I believe. From the link:

“In their case, the families and their attorneys contended that Remington violated Connecticut law and fair trade practices by promoting illegal behavior and specifically marketing their firearms to violence-prone young men.

The legal strategy was considered groundbreaking since it appeared to successfully circumvent a longstanding law, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects firearm manufacturers from litigation after violent incidents involving their products.

"Driven by profit goals set by parent company Cerberus, Remington changed its previously sober approach to marketing firearms in favor of an aggressive, multi-media campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15’s effectiveness as a killing machine," lawyers stated in the press release.”

This makes no sense to me, unless the insurance companies decided to settle and not bankrupt Remington. Usually insurance companies try to avoid payouts, but the article says all four insurers agreed to pay the maximum. Wow.

Terrible precedent.

What’s the difference in auto manufacturers advertising their 500 horsepower cars and marketing them promoting their speed and performance? Guess if you drive your Mustang at 120mph and mow down an old lady, it’s all Ford’s fault?

So Ford needs to put lawn mower engines in their Mustangs, and Remington can make slingshots. Crazy world.

But let’s certainly not hold any individual responsible. That’s divisive.

IMO, they will never take the guns because they love folks killing each other more and getting paid for it. What they are doing , just like the great O, they are generating gun sales ......................You threaten a little , create huge guns sales , folks kill each other .

Its a big club and you aint in it...... George Carlin.

Just watched CBS Evening news and they ran the story. No surprise, EVERY person they interviewed was someone that would applaud the settlement. Not a single interview with someone who would raise the issues raised in this thread such as car manufacturers being held liable for drunk drivers.

Disgustingly biased liberal media at its best.

Driven by profit goals set by parent company Cerberus, Remington changed its previously sober approach to marketing firearms in favor of an aggressive, multi-media campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter video games and by touting the AR-15’s effectiveness as a killing machine," lawyers stated in the press release.

I take this to mean Remington paid to have their firearms appear in video games where people are killed in virtual reality. Remington WAS NOT being sued for manufacturing the firearm, but for how they packaged and marketed it to a very specific audience.

Interesting.

Yup. All the vaxers, willingly, signed away their ability to sue and allowed those companies to inject them with an experimental substance.

Wow. So a rifle is an effective killing machine? Dang. Who would have thought that?

Precedent has been set.. EPA is over reaching just as far.

i'm buying a Remington today.

Tesla's screwed

Based on what appears in the news report, it was Remington's decision to include the Remington name and rifle model in video games as a way to boost sales. Evidently the jury decided this was grounds for holding them accountable for a kid who was evidently influenced after playing video games to make the Bushmaster his weapon of choice. IMO, it would be like Ford allowing their name and vehicle model to be used in video games where people are run over and killed. You can't use a brand or model in such a manner without permission of the manufacturer so evidently Remington knew what was happening. Not saying it's right or wrong but trying to identify the logic being followed by the plaintiff's attorneys.

If all of this is true, the only issue I see is firearm manufacturers being much more careful in how they allow others to use their trademarks.

The jury didn't decide anything, this was a settlement.

Good catch. Yes, the parents decided to take Remington's offer. It's up to us to decide which side felt the most uneasy about letting a jury hear the case. Personally, I think gun owners came out better this way with gun makers getting a wake up call about how they market their offerings in a messed up world. Thankfully, it appears Remington was not held accountable for making and selling the Bushmaster. It's the day when gun makers can no longer afford to make and sell firearms that we need to worry about most.

In the minds of most people Remington admitted to being guilty by offering the settlement.

After learning the details of this case, I have to wonder if ammo makers should at least sanity check how they've been marketing their offerings.

Just Remington letting us all down again.

Well, it goes quite a bit deep than that:

"Ronald Reagan Created the National VICP. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) into law, and this law created the VICP. The VICP protects the pharmaceutical company from liability related to vaccines. If someone suffers from a vaccine injury, they can't bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer. Instead, they must make a claim to the government, and then, they may receive compensation through this program."

Literally billions of dollars have been quietly paid to victims under this program. They all know that the damages and death are going to occur.

Marc

There is not enough money.

Ox, don't worry. FJB will print more.