Notices
Like Tree57Likes

Remington can be sued

Old 03-15-2019, 08:43 AM
  #21  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Originally Posted by fishingfun View Post
I know its NPR but it explains the advertising part. Same thing I heard on the news this mprning.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343...o-move-forward
I'm still not seeing the advertising that is being deemed inappropriate, but I did notice in that article that even the owner of the gun store is being sued. How the hell can that be possible unless he and/or his employees broke any laws?
Cracker likes this.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:43 AM
  #22  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,361
Default

Originally Posted by fishingfun View Post
Well if they advertised it as a killing machine then I'd say yes. If you read why they allowed the case to move forward it point out their advertising not the fact that its a gun.
And you honestly believe that was the reason not just an excuse?
mikefloyd is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:43 AM
  #23  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Sienna Plantation, TX.
Posts: 2,180
Default

That was the bullshitiest article I have ever read.... WTF is "Dangerous Advertising?"
popeyeiii is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:53 AM
  #24  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 16
Default Theory of deeper pockets

sued by a customer for the limit of the company insurance policy. 600k. Sued personally for 400k as owner. Tech sued for faulty workmanship/ negligence.
Customer bounced friend off bow of run about and ran him over, cutting him up pretty bad. Blaming motor for jumping in and out of gear. We only did a tune up and oil change but blamed as we were last to work on motor.
They were drinking at a bar and intoxicated according to the C.C./ police Investigation.
In court with a jury customer lawyer presented his case.
After lunch case is settled for limit of 600k of commercial
policy by both lawyers. Without defense presentation.
Two years later at a boat show a women comes into our display. Omg. I was on the jury , we knew they were lying, we would have gave them nothing. They dismissed the jury telling us case was settled.!
Years later my attorneys tell us . The insurance lawyer and the customers lawyer were distant cousins.!
legal fees and 33 1/3 to the lawyer.

its always a gamble in court, you can be right and still lose.

right, wrong and legal have nothing to do with each other.




Buddy Davis 33 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:56 AM
  #25  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South East Pa
Posts: 9,319
Default

Originally Posted by Freeebird View Post
Silly Yankees. Sometimes there just aren't enough walls.

This would be like someone suing GM/Chevrolet for building the Corvette that was running over 175MPH when it hit a school bus and killed all the kids onboard. There is absolutely no reason to build a car that will go that fast when the speed limit is less than half that.
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
FASTFJR is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:02 AM
  #26  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On The Border
Posts: 5,567
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
True, some guns are indeed meant simply for hunting. What's your twisted point past that?
Beuford T. Justice is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:07 AM
  #27  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 34
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying

The logic in your statement, or lack thereof, is astounding.

Most guns are not sold for the sole purpose of “killing.” The majority are sold for target shooting. Some are used for hunting animals, which is legal for the most part.

Cracker and shiprec13 like this.
ReelCrabby912 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:08 AM
  #28  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South East Pa
Posts: 9,319
Default

Originally Posted by Beuford T. Justice View Post
True, some guns are indeed meant simply for hunting. What's your twisted point past that?
Your comparing a car to a gun is way off, just my opinion
FASTFJR is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:08 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 100
Default

In this case, if I remember correctly, the perp didn't own the gun. It was his mom's. He killed her and then went on the shooting spree.
Woodbury is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:09 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,201
Default

(The actual parallel is the tobacco company lawsuits)
FASTFJR and TorFed like this.
N2theblue is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:09 AM
  #31  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Mathews County, VA
Posts: 439
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
Nobody who is pissed off by the fact this is happening will read the reason for the case moving forward.

At first I was flabbergasted that this was allowed to move forward, but then read the reasoning. In my opinion, the advertising angle, and what the lawsuit is about is solid, and this will wind up being a benchmark case for firearms advertising in the future.

This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.
It's still crap, though. I live in a fairly gun-friendly state and other than in gun-related magazines or venues (read: "The Nation's Largest Gun Show"), I have never seen an advertisement for ANY make or manufacturer. You have to really be looking to find any kind of marketing for guns. It's not like they are producing 30-second commercials that run in prime time that say "if you want a more efficient killing machine, buy a Remington".

Now if there was actual proof that Lanza's mother bought the gun because she thought it would help her son murder more people based on Remington's advertising, then I'd be all for it. The wording of the suit says that Adam Lanza "selected that gun because he was encouraged by Remington's marketing strategy" (my paraphrasing). But we know that's not the case and can't be proven one way or another.
RivaHaven is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:35 AM
  #32  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On The Border
Posts: 5,567
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
Your comparing a car to a gun is way off, just my opinion
I didn't compare a car to anything else. You must have picked the wrong post I'd guess..
Beuford T. Justice is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:38 AM
  #33  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lewes, DE
Posts: 10,202
Default

Originally Posted by N2theblue View Post
(The actual parallel is the tobacco company lawsuits)
I said that and people got huffy, but, yes, it really is nearly identical.

Originally Posted by RivaHaven View Post
The wording of the suit says that Adam Lanza "selected that gun because he was encouraged by Remington's marketing strategy" (my paraphrasing). But we know that's not the case and can't be proven one way or another.
Interesting how you say you know it isn't the case. I don't. I don't think anyone does. As you say, it can't be proven one way or the other. I'm not sure of the legal criteria, but it may not have to be definitively proven. This is not criminal court. I believe the criteria is can one reasonably assume.

The average owner of an M4/AR15, as shown on this thread, says they are used for target shooting and some hunting. The hunting done with them is pretty specific and limited, though, so say the main reason is target shooting. Then, one would believe 'responsible' advertising would be images of just the gun, or it being used target shooting. I don't know the advertising specifically referred to in the lawsuit, but I would assume that it doesn't fit that. If it does fit that, there is no case and they will lose. If the marketing shows a dude in tactical gear going through a building or jungle or some other scenario.....
TorFed is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:43 AM
  #34  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,361
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
Your comparing a car to a gun is way off, just my opinion
And your blind adherence to a talking point is not surprising.
mikefloyd is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:45 AM
  #35  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
My car analogy was just to show how ridiculous it is to blame the manufacturer. How can a gun manufacturer possibly advertise a gun in a way that would make it less appealing for use in criminal activity?

It's no secret that guns can kill living things, but would it have mattered if Remington had advertised this as a, "for target shooting only", weapon?

NOBODY buys a gun without knowing it has the capacity to kill. It's about the user, not the product.
Cracker, FASTFJR and Cobia 217 like this.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:51 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
tcpip95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 2,108
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
They aren't blaming the gun. They aren't blaming the industry as a whole. That is the point. It is a very specific lawsuit. I don't know what that article posted says, as I have read 3 others this morning. If you read an article on the judges findings you will see what I am referring to.

Basically this is a lawsuit similar to those which made cigarette ads change so much they were marketing to make smoking 'cool'.
Yeah, and this is an ad for future Mercenaries



shiprec13 likes this.
tcpip95 is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:52 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,793
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
My browning bt 99 has never killed anything except clay discs on the trap range.
Jersus is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:54 AM
  #38  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,387
Default

Originally Posted by Jersus View Post


My browning bt 99 has never killed anything except clay discs on the trap range.
But it can only kill one at a time.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:57 AM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
tcpip95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 2,108
Default

Originally Posted by Jersus View Post


My browning bt 99 has never killed anything except clay discs on the trap range.
LOL I have this same discussion with my 1911 every morning. I remind it not to go off and simply shoot anyone. So far it listens very well.
tcpip95 is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:59 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hampstead, NC
Posts: 1,220
Default

I’m suing playboy and hustler for carpal tunnel and tendinitis will also sue Girl Scouts Of America for gettting me fat on those damn coconut macaroons
Beuford T. Justice likes this.
Offshoreaddicted is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread