It's not the Gun that killed all those kids, it was the EVIL Bastard that pulled the trigger..........

Nine Sandy Hook families agree to $73M settlement with gun maker Remington for 'promoting Bushmaster AR15 to young men': Rifle was used in massacre where 20 children and six teachers were killed

• The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have agreed to a $75M settlement against the maker of the rifle used in the massacre 
  
• Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting, used the Bushmaster AR15 rifle made by Remington and legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on December 14, 2012
  
• The civil case in Connecticut focused on how the firearm used was marketed, alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and video games
  
• In one of Remington's ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: 'Consider Your Man Card Reissued'
  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...1TVjbwXxls

---

While Sandy Hook was a reprehensible tragedy, this in no way alleviates or even addresses the underlying mental health problem that's spreading across the country.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

While Sandy Hook was a reprehensible tragedy, this in no way alleviates or even addresses the underlying mental health problem that's spreading across the country.

Nor the criminal problem.

---

Nor the concerted effort to destroy the firearms market and disarm the populace so those tyrants can have their way with us!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

The settlement doesn't appear to be linked to the operation of the firearm.  It's about their marketing.

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

The settlement doesn't appear to be linked to the operation of the firearm.  It's about their marketing.

Law abiding citizens can have em! Yep

---

The settlement doesn't appear to be linked to the operation of the firearm.  It's about their marketing.

Law abiding citizens can have em! Yep

Yes they can.  This becomes an interesting sidebar about what is and isn't appropriate marketing for firearms.  I am sure Big Tobacco is looking at this and thinking, "been there, done that".

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase or plant the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Shall we take a closer look at the Acme Bomb Company??? What “bomb” company?

---

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

I equate Mikesez to Michael Pitt’s character in “A Perfect Murder”. In the movie, he admits to taking the less favorable thoughts/ideas and creating an argument for it. Pretty sure it’s just fun and games to him.  Sadly, he has about the same record as the Jags do.

---

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase or plant the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Shall we take a closer look at the Acme Bomb Company??? What “bomb” company?

meep meep

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

Here are some interesting facts about the case.  Remington didn't settle.  Remington's insurance company is the one that settled.  Remington declared bankruptcy in 2020.

There is a federal law, passed in 2005, which protects gun manufacturers from liability for acts committed by third parties. 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...20products.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which 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."

An actual functioning gun manufacturer, not a bankrupt one like Remington, would vigorously defend itself under that law.

But then there's this:  

Link (sorry if there's a paywall)

"The federal immunity law has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products."

---

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

I equate Mikesez to Michael Pitt’s character in “A Perfect Murder”. In the movie, he admits to taking the less favorable thoughts/ideas and creating an argument for it. Pretty sure it’s just fun and games to him.  Sadly, he has about the same record as the Jags do.

4 out of 33 is clearly the better record.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Remington was in no way at fault.  The firearm in question performed exactly as designed.

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Yeah, we should sue Home Depot! [BLEEP] those people and all their bomb making components.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase or plant the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Shall we take a closer look at the Acme Bomb Company??? What “bomb” company?

That's the point.  Bombs don't have a privileged place in our laws and constitution.  There are very strict restrictions on the sale and distribution of anything that could be used as a bomb.  
Meanwhile, your right to own a gun is protected in the constitution.  Gun manufacturers are protected from most lawsuits by law.  Yet we still see de facto gun regulation creeping forward.  Sure, you can still own a gun, but what if no company wants the liability of marketing a gun to you? 
Law, uh, finds a way.

---

Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

There are numerous regulations on manufacturing and marketing and selling cars so it is very easy for anyone on that chain to establish that they followed a standard of care and should not be held negligent in any action brought by a private individual.  In fact, car manufacturers and dealers are more fearful of action brought by the feds or the states that they might have violated one of these numerous regulations.  
Guns have comparatively few regulations, making it difficult to prove that a manufacturer or distributor applied the correct standard of care.  What is the correct standard of care?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Shall we take a closer look at the Acme Bomb Company??? What “bomb” company?

That's the point.  Bombs don't have a privileged place in our laws and constitution.  There are very strict restrictions on the sale and distribution of anything that could be used as a bomb.  
Meanwhile, your right to own a gun is protected in the constitution.  Gun manufacturers are protected from most lawsuits by law.  Yet we still see de facto gun regulation creeping forward.  Sure, you can still own a gun, but what if no company wants the liability of marketing a gun to you? 
Law, uh, finds a way.

---

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

There are numerous regulations on manufacturing and marketing and selling cars so it is very easy for anyone on that chain to establish that they followed a standard of care and should not be held negligent in any action brought by a private individual.  In fact, car manufacturers and dealers are more fearful of action brought by the feds or the states that they might have violated one of these numerous regulations.  
Guns have comparatively few regulations, making it difficult to prove that a manufacturer or distributor applied the correct standard of care.  What is the correct standard of care?

As usual, you missed by a mile.  What are the "very strict restrictions" on the sale of fertilizer and diesel fuel?  How about those on marketing and selling cars?  What sports car manufacturer doesn't publicize 0-60 performance?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That's the point.  Bombs don't have a privileged place in our laws and constitution.  There are very strict restrictions on the sale and distribution of anything that could be used as a bomb.  
Meanwhile, your right to own a gun is protected in the constitution.  Gun manufacturers are protected from most lawsuits by law.  Yet we still see de facto gun regulation creeping forward.  Sure, you can still own a gun, but what if no company wants the liability of marketing a gun to you? 
Law, uh, finds a way.

---

There are numerous regulations on manufacturing and marketing and selling cars so it is very easy for anyone on that chain to establish that they followed a standard of care and should not be held negligent in any action brought by a private individual.  In fact, car manufacturers and dealers are more fearful of action brought by the feds or the states that they might have violated one of these numerous regulations.  
Guns have comparatively few regulations, making it difficult to prove that a manufacturer or distributor applied the correct standard of care.  What is the correct standard of care?

As usual, you missed by a mile.  What are the "very strict restrictions" on the sale of fertilizer and diesel fuel?  How about those on marketing and selling cars?  What sports car manufacturer doesn't publicize 0-60 performance?

Research it.  I don't have the time to educate you.  Try to buy a truckload of fertilizer and see what happens. Ask Elon Musk about starting a new car company.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.