Maybe. The insurance companies rolled over and settled. Remington had little to do with it.
What do you mean, maybe? Both the state supreme court and the SCOTUS said that the case could proceed on the basis that the advertising fell within one of the carveouts of the 2005 law.
Nitpick. SCOTUS did not “say” that. It denied review which is different.
I don’t get the problem. Yes, guns are designed to kill people. But it is legal to kill people some times such as in self defense. And it is a constitutional right to keep and own them. Show me the Remington or other gun ad that gives you the impression that it is proper to use that product to kill school children. Everyone knows that no gun company says that is okay. The advertising hook is a ruling by an anti-gun judge and if this was about free speech or religion such a suit would be laughed at. But because just don’t like the Second Amendment so we can bankrupt companies for selling not only legal products, but constitutionally protected ones.
No, but the intent of the law was that gun companies should not have to be in a position where they feel the need to settle. They are supposed to be immune from these suits by a duly enacted federal law. And as Remington is declaring bankruptcy, this is probably part of their strategy to get themselves out from under crippling CT lawsuits. And what did they do? Did they tell Lanza to shoot up Sandy Hook?
I know you don’t like guns, but how is Remington and not Lanza responsible?
ETA: And it was his mother’s gun, who he shot and killed with it before shooting up Sandy Hook. Remington is selling a legal product but is responsible for a double illegal act, not even by one of its customers. And nobody sees anything ridiculous about that? I mean, why is Budweiser not responsible for DUI deaths?
Why can bars be held liable?
Those laws were controversial when passed and I am old stubborn fossil who disagrees with them, but this is more than that. It would be as if a 16 year old kid broke into the bar, stole the booze, killed the owner with a kitchen knife and the alcohol company being held liable because some neo-prohibitionist judge said that a beer commercial encouraged that activity.
You’re trying to sound like the voice of reason, but you are deeply out of touch with reality if you think an ad with an AR-15 saying “Consider your man card re-issued” is not a problem. Stipulated, gun ownership is allowed under the Constitution. But aren’t 2A advocates supposed to be all about responsible gun ownership? How does this ad fit into that picture? How does an ad that explicitly plays up to machismo gun fetish fit into a narrative of responsible gun ownership?
Because they are trying to sell guns? And an AR-15 is a cool little gun that does appeal to “machoism.” How does anyone think it is macho to kill a bunch of kids? I know of nobody who thinks that, and why I don’t think the ad is any sort of “problem.” Do you really think that was Lanza’s issue? That he saw an ad? Millions of others saw that ad and did not kill school children. So what is the common denominator there? It’s certainly not the ad.
On the narrow question of whether anyone could have proven a direct causal connection between this ad and this specific event, of course not.
I’m not going to argue you out of your position. But all I can tell you is that you (and, I grant, many Americans) are lost down some gun fetish black hole if you cannot see for yourself that allowing advertisers to promote gun ownership in that dangerous manner is deeply disturbing in a civilized society.
I don’t think that is cool. I own guns to hunt and to protect my family. I have since a young kid. To me they are a tool like a yard rake. I don’t sexualize them in any way.
I think it may be an urban/rural thing. I have always been around and respected guns. For some they are some magical thing that kills on their own.
They are a thing that allow anyone to kill a large number of people very quickly and easily. Virtually all mass killings are carried out by men, often immature young men in emotional crisis. As a responsible gun owner, how is it not obvious to you that promoting gun ownership as a symbol of machismo is wrong?
Cigarette companies didn’t run ads explicitly telling 8-year-olds to smoke, they just had a cartoon camel.
You really think gun companies want their customers to shoot up schools? I concede that cigarette companies wanted kids to smoke.
I don’t think the gun companies give a damn what their guns are used for, as long as they’re selling.
The gun companies don’t want anyone to die. They just care more about selling as many guns as possible.
The cigarette companies didn’t want anyone to die. They just cared more about selling as many cigarettes as possible.
Probably not, but it’s rather disingenuous of them to run an ad appealing to those who want their “man card” reissued and then wash their of what happens next.
But I legitimately do not understand this line of thought. Yes, some guys want to be a “man’s man,” be “macho” have their swinging dick out (figuratively) for all the ladies to see. They are chauvinists, and perhaps these ads appeal to them. What part of being that, as bad as it is, involves killing school children?
How close a connection do you want; if a company sells targets with images of Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, and one of their customers later shoots the real person, can the company walk away and say “we only made paper targets”?
Suppose, in the course of investigating this case, documents are found at Remington that said their market research showed that sales would go up if they targeted their ads at insecure loners. Maybe someone testifies that they raised the possibility that one of their guns would be used in a school shooting, and their concerns were dismissed. Who knows what will be found as this goes forward. Both sides get to make their case. That’s what juries are for.