Jump to content

Remington Arms has settled with Sandy Hook families

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29794

Posted
Posted

From the Washington Post:

 

Quote

The amount of the settlement was not disclosed in the court filing posted to Waterbury Superior Court. The Associated Press reported the settlement is for $73 million. Remington, which has filed for bankruptcy, offered to pay nearly $33 million to the nine families last July.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

am i wrong to liken gun manufacturers to opioid drug manufacturers? 

Opioids and opiates are effective for those experiencing severe and chronic pain from objective pain generators.  That population continues to suffer from the actions of those without objective pain generators.  Think of cancer patients v. Junkies  

Weapons manufacturers suffer the same difficulties.  Responsible gun owners like myself suffer because of tools parading around with weapons and sociopaths looking to kill anything.  Think of Andy Griffith v Johnny Tool with penis envy and Saddam’s sons hunting people. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23084

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Opioids and opiates are effective for those experiencing severe and chronic pain from objective pain generators.  That population continues to suffer from the actions of those without objective pain generators.  Think of cancer patients v. Junkies  

Weapons manufacturers suffer the same difficulties.  Responsible gun owners like myself suffer because of tools parading around with weapons and sociopaths looking to kill anything.  Think of Andy Griffith v Johnny Tool with penis envy and Saddam’s sons hunting people. 

 

both manufacture industries push their havoc wreaking products to the masses, one via doctors, the other via the 2nd amendment protections and bought congressmen. yes they both have legitimate reasons for the product but both have devastating impacts which are known but ignored by the manufacturers. what are either manufacturing industries doing about the mess caused by their products? how are they helping to prevent the shitshow that their products are creating?

i think most people are happy about holding opioid manufacturers accountable but many don't agree with holding gun manufacturers accountable. why not?

honest question. again i don't see much difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Opioids and opiates are effective for those experiencing severe and chronic pain from objective pain generators.  That population continues to suffer from the actions of those without objective pain generators.  Think of cancer patients v. Junkies  

Weapons manufacturers suffer the same difficulties.  Responsible gun owners like myself suffer because of tools parading around with weapons and sociopaths looking to kill anything.  Think of Andy Griffith v Johnny Tool with penis envy and Saddam’s sons hunting people. 

This.

As a society, including both the manufacturer/merchant class and the consumer class, we suffer from a glut of "muh rights, I can do what I want!" and a near-total dearth of "responsibility."  We are seriously out-of-balance.

I love opiates -- I watched the palpable look of relief on my daughter's face when she was nearly blinded by pain from an acute medical condition that sent her to ER on the verge of going into shock.  BUT.....profiteers like the Sacklers made a fortune marketing those drugs in a way that they knew would actually kill people.  Product that can be used for good or bad, saw a heavy marketing for the bad.

I love firearms - I've been shooting since I was 5.  I hunt, my family enjoys trips to the range, we bond, and have a great time.  But firearms have become a social status symbol, and not of anything healthy.  Nutbars parade around with their AR at the grocery store or Chipotle, they carry them up to the Capitol at rallies for other causes, purposefully using them to intimidate.  Product that can be used for good or bad, saw a heavy marketing for the bad.

Shit, we could do this same exercise with a dozen things.  I mean, matches are handy, but if there was a massive social shift to "I can hand out matches to three year olds, it's my right!", we'd have a problem.

It all comes back to balance, and said balance being out-of-whack.  Rights come with responsibilities.  Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

am i wrong to liken gun manufacturers to opioid drug manufacturers? 

It's actually not a bad comparison. 

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Opioids and opiates are effective for those experiencing severe and chronic pain from objective pain generators.  That population continues to suffer from the actions of those without objective pain generators.  Think of cancer patients v. Junkies  

Weapons manufacturers suffer the same difficulties.  Responsible gun owners like myself suffer because of tools parading around with weapons and sociopaths looking to kill anything.  Think of Andy Griffith v Johnny Tool with penis envy and Saddam’s sons hunting people. 

Este. 

People that do not use [guns/opiates] legally v. people that use [guns/opiates] legally

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

am i wrong to liken gun manufacturers to opioid drug manufacturers? 

Oh, that's an interesting thought. I want to say they aren't the same, but can't really back up my argument in a concrete way off the bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23084

Posted
Posted
Just now, Neonmoon said:

It's actually not a bad comparison. 

Este. 

People that do not use [guns/opiates] legally v. people that use [guns/opiates] legally

 

 

yes legal vs illegal is part of the issue. but so is the issue of manufacturers flooding the market with their products which they know is being used illegally. are they responsible? well, in the drug companies case, apparently yes. but not so with guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't know what you mean. Care to expand? It's an unprejudiced question; I really don't know about this aspect.

That’s been a talking point for a long time as one of the deterrents, or additional barriers to ownership. I’m not against it, per se. But there’s hundreds of manufacturers out there, and only a handful Remington/Winchester/Ruger types that could potentially absorb a $50m lawsuit when some dickbag kills a bunch of kids using your $500 product.  Some small AR company can’t price that in, or sustain the suit.  It’s really just another tax that’ll you’ll pay to play, or won’t.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33843

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s been a talking point for a long time as one of the deterrents, or additional barriers to ownership. I’m not against it, per se. But there’s hundreds of manufacturers out there, and only a handful Remington/Winchester/Ruger types that could potentially absorb a $50m lawsuit when some dickbag kills a bunch of kids using your $500 product.  Some small AR company can’t price that in, or sustain the suit.  It’s really just another tax that’ll you’ll pay to play, or won’t.  

oh darn, make it harder/more expensive for people to kill each other. whatever will we do?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

 

both manufacture industries push their havoc wreaking products to the masses, one via doctors, the other via the 2nd amendment protections and bought congressmen. yes they both have legitimate reasons for the product but both have devastating impacts which are known but ignored by the manufacturers. what are either manufacturing industries doing about the mess caused by their products? how are they helping to prevent the shitshow that their products are creating?

i think most people are happy about holding opioid manufacturers accountable but many don't agree with holding gun manufacturers accountable. why not?

honest question. again i don't see much difference between the two.

Alcohol. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

oh darn, make it harder/more expensive for people to kill each other. whatever will we do?

I mean if you feel people with less means shouldn’t have the right to protect themselves via firearm, that is for you.  I can afford it, so it will be a non-starter for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brown water

brown water 3761

Posted
Posted

The distinction I see (and I’m very much for more gun regulation) is the ability for a manufacturer to infer whether criminal activity is occurring. People collect guns. They don’t collect opioids.  There were supply chain indicators that should (actually did) indicate opioids were being prescribed beyond their clinically appropriate levels. Not sure how that gets established when collecting guns (and using either for hunting or at a range) is a legitimate hobby. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s been a talking point for a long time as one of the deterrents, or additional barriers to ownership. I’m not against it, per se. But there’s hundreds of manufacturers out there, and only a handful Remington/Winchester/Ruger types that could potentially absorb a $50m lawsuit when some dickbag kills a bunch of kids using your $500 product.  Some small AR company can’t price that in, or sustain the suit.  It’s really just another tax that’ll you’ll pay to play, or won’t.  

the cost of being a responsible manufacturer isn't a tax.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Alcohol. 

 

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I mean if you feel people with less means shouldn’t have the right to protect themselves via firearm, that is for you.  I can afford it, so it will be a non-starter for me. 

Actually,  you're missing the third and middle path for firearms which is actually something that's been applied to alcohol (via social pressure) over the past couple of decades -- RESPONSIBLE marketing and sale.

The alcohol industry spends a fair amount of money and communication time on drinking responsibly, don't drive drunk, etc.  No, of course it's not perfect.  But there's an explicit message of responsibility, and a culture that has grown around it.  People still abuse it, binge drink, etc.  But it has had a positive effect.

The culture of responsible gun ownership has been drowned out by the culture (and marketing) of billy joe badass, carry a weapon everywhere you go, trick it out, be ready for anything, tactical badassery bullshit.  When I was a kid, the NRA was an organization dedicated to safe and responsible shooting sports and activities.  I was happy to be a member for years.  Today.....that's not the NRA's role at all.  Seriously, it has become so far sidelined as to be a non-issue.  It's all about your "right" to own as many types of whatever firearms you want and carry and swing them around wherever, whenever, and however you want.

Balance.  How about we try to take THAT approach, instead of having to hold manufacturers liable for marketing their products as cool toys....whether that be guns or opiates?

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, elfenix said:

the cost of being a responsible manufacturer isn't a tax.

How is the manufacturer being irresponsible? 
 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually,  you're missing the third and middle path for firearms which is actually something that's been applied to alcohol (via social pressure) over the past couple of decades -- RESPONSIBLE marketing and sale.

The alcohol industry spends a fair amount of money and communication time on drinking responsibly, don't drive drunk, etc. 

But I’m not. And I’m certain every drug commercial I see has the same message about intended use that Budweiser and Crown puts at the end of their commercials.  It’s a cya at the end of the commercial, nothing more. 
 

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The culture of responsible gun ownership has been drowned out by the culture (and marketing) of billy joe badass, carry a weapon everywhere you go, trick it out, be ready for anything, tactical badassery bullshit.

You can see what you want to see. You want to know what pop ups I get, Perrazi and Rizzini ads.  Tacticool shit is easy to find if you’re looking for it. To say it’s drowned the culture shows me you don’t spend any real time near the skeet and trap fields.  You’ve identified an aspect you don’t Iike or approve of and are painting with an extremely wide brush.  Shocking, I know. 

 

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When I was a kid, the NRA was an organization dedicated to safe and responsible shooting sports and activities.  I was happy to be a member for years.  Today.....that's not the NRA's role at all.  Seriously, it has become so far sidelined as to be a non-issue.  It's all about your "right" to own as many types of whatever firearms you want and carry and swing them around wherever, whenever, and however you want.

What does the NRA owe you? It definitely went on the offensive about the time of the AWB.   That’s their prerogative.  Fighting fire with fire. You stopped donating, and that’s you’re choice and what hits them the hardest.  I’ll never understand the whining about how the NRA went from teaching the golden rules to a more political bent org.  One part nostalgia mixed with one part I don't agree with their politics so they are the debbil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

 

You can see what you want to see. You want to know what pop ups I get, Perrazi and Rizzini ads.  Tacticool shit is easy to find if you’re looking for it. To say it’s drowned the culture shows me you don’t spend any real time near the skeet and trap fields.  You’ve identified an aspect you don’t Iike or approve of and are painting with an extremely wide brush.  Shocking, I know. 

 

What does the NRA owe you? It definitely went on the offensive about the time of the AWB.   That’s their prerogative.  Fighting fire with fire. You stopped donating, and that’s you’re choice and what hits them the hardest.  I’ll never understand the whining about how the NRA went from teaching the golden rules to a more political bent org.  One part nostalgia mixed with one part I don't agree with their politics so they are the debbil. 

Actually, I watched the evolution of American gun culture, and the marketing attached to it, in real-time.  I started subscribing to Field and Stream when I was 8.  And I watched it get inundated and slammed by the tacticool crowd.  I recall an occasion when one writer there dared speak out with his concerns about the AR culture and such.....and he and F&S were SLAMMED by the radicals (funny how the "cancel culture" concerns from the right these days forget their "tip of the spear" use of that tactic).  Same with any mention of lamenting the shift of the NRA.  Any voice about firearms that took a more traditional, balanced, and responsible approach was shouted down and yep, "cancelled."  

No, nobody owes me anything.  I just think it's short-sighted for American gun owners to whine about how they are always painted to look like the bad guys when as a group.....we do everything we can to appear as publicly as we can like gun nuts with zero sense of social responsibility.

I let my subscription lapse several years ago.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I just think it's short-sighted for American gun owners to whine about how they are always painted to look like the bad guys when as a group.....we do everything we can to appear as publicly as we can like gun nuts with zero sense of social responsibility.

 

So, I’m about as far from a “tacticool” guy as you’ll get. I don’t even own a sa shotgun because shotguns should have two barrels.  But aside from looking ridiculous, what does these LARPing assholes hurt?  Your nostalgia for field and steam of the 70’s aside.  You mention often that you used to be a gun show guy years and years ago. Do you not recall the $100 SKS that everyone had?  You know what an SKS painted black is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

How is the manufacturer being irresponsible? 

by not internalizing the costs that its product imposes on the rest of society.  i know you're basically charles koch when it comes to this line of thought, though. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, elfenix said:

by not internalizing the costs that its product imposes on the rest of society.  i know you're basically charles koch when it comes to this line of thought, though. 

Ah. Like alcohol, or anything with an internal combustion engine, or foods high in sugar.  Cool, cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, I’m about as far from a “tacticool” guy as you’ll get. I don’t even own a sa shotgun because shotguns should have two barrels.  But aside from looking ridiculous, what does these LARPing assholes hurt?  Your nostalgia for field and steam of the 70’s aside.  You mention often that you used to be a gun show guy years and years ago. Do you not recall the $100 SKS that everyone had?  You know what an SKS painted black is? 

Exactly.  And I remember the cultural shift that really took off when those showed up.  You're, ummm, making my point for me.  I had a buddy who bought like 10 of 'em.  And I remember asking him WTF did you do that for?  As he started spouting his bullshit - some combo of selling them for a profit and prepper bullshit, I tuned out and realized that gun culture was changing, and not for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25898

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

How is the manufacturer being irresponsible? 
 

But I’m not. And I’m certain every drug commercial I see has the same message about intended use that Budweiser and Crown puts at the end of their commercials.  It’s a cya at the end of the commercial, nothing more. 
 

You can see what you want to see. You want to know what pop ups I get, Perrazi and Rizzini ads.  Tacticool shit is easy to find if you’re looking for it. To say it’s drowned the culture shows me you don’t spend any real time near the skeet and trap fields.  You’ve identified an aspect you don’t Iike or approve of and are painting with an extremely wide brush.  Shocking, I know. 

 

What does the NRA owe you? It definitely went on the offensive about the time of the AWB.   That’s their prerogative.  Fighting fire with fire. You stopped donating, and that’s you’re choice and what hits them the hardest.  I’ll never understand the whining about how the NRA went from teaching the golden rules to a more political bent org.  One part nostalgia mixed with one part I don't agree with their politics so they are the debbil. 

It's a corrupt, piece of shit organization.  But hey bro, continue funding La Pierre's Rodeo Drive shopping trips and yacht excursions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

It is fascinating how much attention ARs get.  They account for a miniscule amount of gun murders a year.

I don't care for holding manufacturers liable for products that work as intended.  If you want to ban them, ban them.  Or ban high cap magazines.  Legal liability for a product that works as it is designed and not the product of a design or manufacturing flaw is bizarre to me.

And if you want to sue anyone for marketing and glorifying guns, sue movie and television producers.  They do a shitload more of that marketing that actually reaches people than Remington or any other manufacturer.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, elfenix said:

what sort of ratio of cost should be imposed on the rest of us so that someone can make a profit?

What has is cost you? 

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Exactly.  And I remember the cultural shift that really took off when those showed up.  You're, ummm, making my point for me.  I had a buddy who bought like 10 of 'em.  And I remember asking him WTF did you do that for?  As he started spouting his bullshit - some combo of selling them for a profit and prepper bullshit, I tuned out and realized that gun culture was changing, and not for the better.

While I value anecdotal accounts, I’m not certain your prepper buddy should represent the 10’s and 10’s of millions of gun owners across America.  And as long as his answer wasn’t “go commit mass murder”, should you really gaf if he likes to blow thru ammo in some Soviet pos?  Does him following the law with that Soviet pos make anything he was doing more “wrong”. 
 

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It's a corrupt, piece of shit organization.  But hey bro, continue funding La Pierre's Rodeo Drive shopping trips and yacht excursions. 

I agree. I’ve stated on here dozens of times that the second he’s gone, I’m back to donating. Until then they’ll just have to do.  When the first bill with teeth gets passed I’m back on 110% even if that slimy fuck is still around.  My view is they are a slimy org designed to fight slimy politicians, nothing more or less.  I figured out the golden rules without their help, and was even able to pass it to the next generation without their help. Crazy, I know. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26229

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is fascinating how much attention ARs get.  They account for a miniscule amount of gun murders a year.

It was fascinating how much attention Thompsons got for their market share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

What has is cost you? 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272705000411

 

anyway, can you answer the question?  what sort of ratio of cost to profit should be allowed?  what if that ratio is over 1?  should it matter if the cost is diffuse vs. not? 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25898

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is fascinating how much attention ARs get.  They account for a miniscule amount of gun murders a year.

I don't care for holding manufacturers liable for products that work as intended.  If you want to ban them, ban them.  Or ban high cap magazines.  Legal liability for a product that works as it is designed and not the product of a design or manufacturing flaw is bizarre to me.

And if you want to sue anyone for marketing and glorifying guns, sue movie and television producers.  They do a shitload more of that marketing that actually reaches people than Remington or any other manufacturer.

IMO, that's the only practical solution because this genie is way the fuck out of the bottle.    CA enacted such a ban.  It's still on hold, pending a possible SCOTUS case.  

 

Anybody want to guess which way SCOTUS would go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3755

Posted
Posted

I am armed to the teeth. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to own an AK, KS, or AR15, as their only purpose is to kill PEOPLE.  

Most murders are with handguns.  But a lot more people kill themselves or loved ones every year, with guns for "defense" than are actually used in defense.  We were smart enough to ban assault weapons, but the Republicans proved themselves to be whores, and now AR15's have completely flooded the market as one of the most popular and expensive weapons around.

The money does not mean shit to Remington. Same way they feel about more dead school kids. It's about math.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

am i wrong to liken gun manufacturers to opioid drug manufacturers? 

Not sure it's an apples to apples comparison. The drug companies knew before they even marketed their product what the issues were.  They knew the depenceny rate would be substantial, and hid that info.  

Not sure you can say the gun companies thought people would go on killing sprees with their weapons, but they for damn sure had to know that in the wrong hands they'd be trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26229

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I am armed to the teeth. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to own an AK, KS, or AR15, as their only purpose is to kill PEOPLE.  

Most murders are with handguns.  But a lot more people kill themselves or loved ones every year, with guns for "defense" than are actually used in defense.  We were smart enough to ban assault weapons, but the Republicans proved themselves to be whores, and now AR15's have completely flooded the market as one of the most popular and expensive weapons around.

The money does not mean shit to Remington. Same way they feel about more dead school kids. It's about math.

giphy.gif?cid=63e6b07e2yowofr0kwumbbfp6k

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...