Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Court documents filed Tuesday show Remington Arms Co. was offering millions to settle lawsuits filed by nine families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Remington is offering $3.66 million to each of the nine families, for a total of nearly $33 million.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That means it's time for Second Amendment lovers to...

Cancel Remington!

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-28 03:08 PM | Reply

They tried! It went bankrupt.

It was bought by Richmond Italia, whom has a substantial marijuana business in Canada that can easily pay out $33 million.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-07-28 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What do they have to lose? They're in Chapter 11.

#3 | Posted by jakester at 2021-07-28 08:02 PM | Reply

Why should we allow a corporation to exist that has so consistently lied about things like mass murders to exist?
Perhaps it is just me but I suspect most Americans don't believe a corporation like that should even be allowed to exist.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2021-07-29 04:21 AM | Reply

"Corporations are people, my friend."
Mitt Romney, 2011

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-07-29 04:38 AM | Reply

"And I took thousands of jobs from people when I ran Bain Capitol! I'm rich! Yay me!"

- Mitt Romney (for decades)

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-07-29 04:48 AM | Reply

""Corporations are murdering people, my friend."
Mitt Romney, 2011"

FTFY

Gun companies need to be held accountable for the murders committed by their customers. They won't even try to limit purchases to those not disqualified by prior criminal records. Every gun murder committed by an unqualified buyer should place them in jeopardy of law suits which would very soon bankrupt them which would be a good thing. Evil incarnate is my description of the gun lobby. Human beings without consciences and undeserving of continued life. They sell death every day, it's probably time they bought some of the products they sell and the consequences that go with them. If a gun business executive gets murdered with a gun....oh well.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2021-07-29 04:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Unqualified buyer". It's the government that makes that decision. Sue them all you want.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-07-29 08:39 AM | Reply

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg

The government makes the rules yes. The corporation turns the blind eye when there is obvious abuse of the rules. And don't think for one second a corporation won't do anything for profit even promoting breaking of the rules.

Need proof of this going on today?

Look at the drug industry - oxy, etc. Government makes the rules there too. Or do you think it is good to manufacture highly addictive and deadly drugs, mismarket them and ignore widespread abuse and instead reward those doling them out like candy?

Look at PFOS contamination. DuPont knew how bad they were since at least 1960. 3M knew they were bad as well and when it was becoming more evident quit making some around 2000 (Scotchgaurd...). DuPont kept on rolling with them and denying health risks and even intimidating those that saw it or is Robert Bilott's experience taking on DuPont just pure fiction? (Not to mention the truckloads of evidence...)

Gun Makers profit off gun sales. They want everyone to buy more guns. They will do pretty much what they can to encourage those sales. I have zero doubt. Over half of all the guns in Central American used by criminals trace their origin back to the US. Beyond Our Borders/

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-07-29 09:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

took them long enough...

let me guess, they exhausted every other possibility.

Nothing like Corporate Remorse in America (yack!)

#10 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-07-29 10:03 AM | Reply

Gun Makers profit off gun sales.

#9 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2021-07-29 09:27 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes, they are a business. Every single sale & export is approved by the US Government. Central Americans are killing each other over drug smuggling corridors in a War on Drugs built by the US Government, waged by Cartels frequently led by former soldiers trained by US special forces as counter-narcos. Remington didn't create those conditions, racist politicians did.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-07-29 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'll just say this, I'm glad Charlton Heston is dead but I just wish he had been killed by a nut with a gun.
My comment will probably be deleted but for the few of you who actually get to read it know that it is a sincere and well thought out opinion.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2021-07-29 10:58 AM | Reply

"Remington didn't create those conditions, racist politicians did."

Racism is an evil thing but it is not responsible for the "War on Drugs." I think Richard Nixon started that disaster and the cure is so f****g But the simple. Legalize drugs! Take away the profit and the cartels and drug dealers will lose their businesses. But, the real question actually comes down to.....do the politicians actually want the drug culture to continue. I suspect they do. If we could only prove that I would be in favor of the death penalty for them, probably sentence them to an overdose.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2021-07-29 11:03 AM | Reply

Great news, this sets the stage to sue Ford Motor Company.
Jim Beam better duck too.

#14 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-07-29 01:36 PM | Reply

#14, Why? Is Ford selling military style vehicles to anyone with a debit card?

Is Jim Beam selling Molotov cocktails?

#15 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2021-07-29 01:59 PM | Reply

Why should a corporation be held liable for the actions of someone who misused their product?

#16 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-29 09:33 PM | Reply

"Why should a corporation be held liable for the actions of someone who misused their product?"

Misused?

The product was used as intended. It worked exactly as advertised.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-29 10:06 PM | Reply

"Charlton Heston"

Why do old people lose their marbles and go hard right?
I'm wondering if there's research into this.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-29 10:10 PM | Reply

"Remington didn't create those conditions, racist politicians did."

Thanks, First Amendment!

(Since spending money on lobbyists is an act of free speech, for those who can't connect the dots.)

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-29 10:19 PM | Reply

The product was used as intended. It worked exactly as advertised.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-29 10:06 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Show me the advertisement?

#20 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-29 10:34 PM | Reply

Show me the advertisement?

You can probably find it in the court filings. It was one of the lynchpins of the case, if I recall correctly.

#21 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-07-29 10:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 I too have asked this question after noticing it first hand. I think a lot of it is paranoia.

#22 | Posted by horstngraben at 2021-07-29 10:52 PM | Reply

"Show me the advertisement?

#20 | POSTED BY SCOTTE "

I would like to see it as well. As far as I know guns were not meant for murder any more than a knife is. But I could be wrong. Perhaps Snoofy the troll has a reason for saying what he did other than trolling. But I seriously doubt it.

#23 | Posted by jakester at 2021-07-29 11:32 PM | Reply

"As far as I know guns were not meant for murder any more than a knife is."

Like a gun can tell "murder" from "shooting range."
That being said, Lynyrd Skynyrd has a song about a gun which is a tool for murder.
Knives are made for lots of things. Like making dinner. Or killing people.
What purpose does a gun have, that doesn't involve killing? A ram set is one example. But I wouldn't try to hang my hat on one.
Very few people know that I own weapons, and those few are misinformed. I mean, unless having some cutlery counts.
Does it?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-29 11:47 PM | Reply

#22 It's become personal recently, and as a good conservative, now I have to care. Got any tips? Between genetics and rocks in the head, I think we can figure this out.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-29 11:49 PM | Reply

Why should a corporation be held liable for the actions of someone who misused their product?

#16 | POSTED BY SCOTTE AT 2021-07-29 09:33 PM | REPLY

Because this is a liberal rag. They believe if you go buy a fifth of whiskey and drink it, the seller is responsible for your roadkill.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-07-30 01:11 AM | Reply

What purpose does a gun have, that doesn't involve killing?

They can be used to prevent a killing...they can be used for self defense.
They can be used for sport shooting such as FITASC.
They can be used for hunting which does involve killing animals.
The slaughter of innocents is something where very disturbed individual might use a gun , but they have been shown to use other methods. The point being Adam Lanza was one of those very disturbed individuals and had been since a very young age and very little was done to help him or protect society from him.
Snoofy you and I agree there are some people that should not have access to firearms but I think we disagree on how that can be achieved.

#27 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:27 AM | Reply

Thanks, First Amendment!

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-29 10:19 PM | FLAG:

Normally you have to watch out for NRA members becoming President like JFK, but Trump was one and tried illegal crackdowns to overrule ATF precedent by EO. Now even California has a declining belief in gun control, and that's not from lobbyists.

#28 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-07-30 09:09 AM | Reply

"They can be used to prevent a killing...they can be used for self defense."

By threat of killing.

Guns are meant to kill living things, or destroy inanimate things, by shooting bullets at said things.

The way guns were used at Newtown is consistent with their intended use.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 09:28 AM | Reply

The difference between you and I is that you think guns are the problem and I think it's deranged people.

And I don't see either of them going away but all these mass shooters have one thing in common...they all had been showing multiple red flags and in most cases nothing was being done.
Most people who commit violent crimes have a history of violence.
The people who commit these acts are a small percentage of the population so we should be focusing on how we can curb their violent tendencies as opposed to rounding up 400 million firearms.

#30 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 12:40 PM | Reply

It's deranged people with guns, ScottE.

It's giving people, including deranged people, the right to bear arms.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 12:46 PM | Reply

"as opposed to rounding up 400 million firearms."

^
Straw man.
I never suggested that.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 12:47 PM | Reply

It's giving people, including deranged people, the right to bear arms.
#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 12:46 PM | REPLY |

We've been through all that. The Gun Control Act of 1968 addresses mentally ill and violent person's...how do we implement it more effectively?

as opposed to rounding up 400 million firearms."
^
Straw man.
I never suggested that.

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 12:47 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

What do you suggest?

And I didn't say confiscate, I said 'rounding up' as in locate and register every gun in the US.

#33 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:01 PM | Reply

"I said 'rounding up' as in locate and register every gun in the US."

That's not "rounding up", and it would NOT be taken that way.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-07-30 01:02 PM | Reply

"What do you suggest?"

It isn't obvious?

I suggest not giving giving people, including deranged people, the right to bear arms.

Not rocket science.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 01:09 PM | Reply

Stop with the minutia and provide some meaningful conversation. I clarified my statement.
What's your solution?

#36 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:11 PM | Reply

as in locate and register every gun in the US.

They tried that in Canada. Waste of a billion dollars.

#37 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-07-30 01:12 PM | Reply

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 addresses mentally ill and violent person's"

If it addresses that, why are there still 10,000 gun murders a year?

By your thinking, it must be something other than mentally ill and violent people committing those murders.

So, what needs to be added to the Gun Control Act of 1968 to reduce America's gun murders to the rates we see in other modern countries?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 01:17 PM | Reply

It isn't obvious?
I suggest not giving giving people, including deranged people, the right to bear arms.
Not rocket science.

#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 01:09 PM | REPLY |

It's never obvious with you.

But it sounds like you ant to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

#39 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:35 PM | Reply

If it addresses that, why are there still 10,000 gun murders a year?

We have lots of laws on the books so why is there any crime?

#40 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:40 PM | Reply

If violent people and mentally ill people aren't able to get guns because of the Gun Control Act of 1968, then who's doing all these murders?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 01:43 PM | Reply

then who's doing all these murders?

#41 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 01:43 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Who's commiting all violent crimes?

People. Which is why I think the solution lies in addressing those who commit violent acts (a very small percentage of the population) as opposed to blaming inanimate objects.

You still haven't answered my question...are you in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

#42 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 01:58 PM | Reply

"Which is why I think the solution lies in addressing those who commit violent acts"

What you think?

You know that's not what other modern countries do, right?

Are you saying their solution doesn't work?

What is your problem with implementing a known working solution? It defies all logic.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 02:09 PM | Reply

"Who's commiting all violent crimes?"

"People."

So then explain to us, why should "people" have the right to bear arms?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 02:12 PM | Reply

So you are for repealing the 2nd Amendment and gun confiscation.

Yes or No?

#45 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 02:41 PM | Reply

You know that's not what other modern countries do, right?

Countries such as...?

Homicide is about 1% of all the violent crimes committed in America, and they aren't all committed with guns yet you seem to think removing all the guns will make us safer.

You want to take away the rights of law abiding Americans because of the acts of criminals who by definition don't follow the law. That defies logic.

What if you apply your solution to all crime? We'd be living in a police state with no rights.

#46 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 03:07 PM | Reply

"Countries such as...?"

Australia and New Zealand. Start there.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-07-30 03:34 PM | Reply

"Countries such as...?"

Every other modern country.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 06:44 PM | Reply

"That defies logic."

No it doesn't.

The approach used in every other modern country results in far less gun violence in those countries.

This is readily confirmed. It's empirical reality.

You denying the truth is what denies logic.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 06:48 PM | Reply

"Homicide is about 1% of all the violent crimes committed in America"

You're minimizing the worst crime known to man?

It sure seems like 10,000 gun murders a year isn't really a thing you think we should try to curb.

Do you think we should just let drunk driving go unchecked too?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 06:53 PM | Reply

"You want to take away the rights of law abiding Americans"

I don't have a problem with law abiding people owning guns.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 06:54 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with law abiding people owning guns.

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 06:54 PM | REPLY

But you do.

It isn't obvious?
I suggest not giving giving people, including deranged people, the right to bear arms.
Not rocket science.
#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 01:09 PM | REPLY |

You're minimizing the worst crime known to man?

No I'm not. You're the one ignoring the vast majority of violent crime including some murders because a gun wasn't used.

#52 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 07:53 PM | Reply

And now you're arguing that gun murders shouldn't be curbed, because there are other ways of murdering someone.

"Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,368 homicides in 2019. This is followed by firearms of an unstated type, with 2,963 cases in that year. When combined, murders with guns comprised around 73.6 percent of the 13,927 total homicide victims recorded by the FBI in 2019." www.statista.com

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 08:03 PM | Reply

And now you're arguing that gun murders shouldn't be curbed, because there are other ways of murdering someone.

Stop with the Ben Shapiro --------.

Below is my first post of the day and everybody...mostly you...seemed to have a problem with it. So much so that once again you're trying to tell me what I'm arguing for and against...classic Shapiro

"The difference between you and I is that you think guns are the problem and I think it's deranged people.

Most people who commit violent crimes have a history of violence.
The people who commit these acts are a small percentage of the population so we should be focusing on how we can curb their violent tendencies as opposed to rounding up 400 million firearms.

#30 | POSTED BY SCOTTE AT 2021-07-30 12:40 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Again I see focusing on the people committing the violence as a solution where you think the problem can be solved by removing the guns....which by the way is never going to happen.

#54 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 09:33 PM | Reply

And since you're throwing out statistics from statista.com you can go back and see that in 1980 the murder rate was 10.4 per 100,000 and in 2018 it was 5.9

So the murder rate has dropped even though the number of guns has doubled since then.

#55 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 09:40 PM | Reply

So what you're saying is 12,000 gun murders a year is okay because it used to be more.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 09:41 PM | Reply

"So the murder rate has dropped even though the number of guns has doubled since then."

The number of gun owners has not doubled. It's declined along with the gun murder rate. www.statista.com

And it would decline even further if we treated gun ownership like a responsibility instead of a right extended by default to everyone, including people who only want guns to commit crimes with them. My basis for that statement is: Every other modern country.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 09:44 PM | Reply

There's a story up about the Jan 6 insurrection which has this related story:

Ex-cop who stormed US Capitol is jailed after buying 37 guns and posting that 'violence' is better than 'peaceful protest' www.cnn.com

^
This is the type of person who shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 10:21 PM | Reply

I agree. He probably shouldn't have been a cop either. I hope they use that quote against him.

There's a correlation often made here that more guns equal more shootings. I just pointed out that it's not true.

America is more violent than some countries and less than others and I think it has less to do with guns than you.

If you go back to 1990 the US murder rate was 7x that of Australia on a per Capita basis. (This was 6 years before the gun ban) In 2018 it's still 6x that of Australia.

America is a more violent country and maybe the excessive guns are more a symptom than a cause.

#59 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-30 10:53 PM | Reply

"There's a correlation often made here that more guns equal more shootings."

More gun owners who shouldn't be allowed own guns leads to more shootings. That's why they take steps to ensure the wrong people don't own guns in the rest of the modern world.

As for your claim, almost everyone who owns guns, owns more than one gun. Like the guy I linked who bought 37. Guns don't shoot by themselves, so the number of gun owners is what you might expect to correlate to the number of shootings.

It's sort of like how your car insurance rate doesn't double when you buy a second car, because you can't drive two cars at once.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 11:23 PM | Reply

"America is a more violent country and maybe the excessive guns are more a symptom than a cause."

10,000 gun murders a year very clearly shows that guns are a cause of gun murders, ScottE.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-30 11:24 PM | Reply

As for your claim, almost everyone who owns guns, owns more than one gun.

I never said that on this thread or any other one, and I don't believe anyone else did on this thread either.
But I did some checking and it seems the number of gun owners has dropped from 51% in 1978 to 40% today.
wamu.org

10,000 gun murders a year very clearly shows that guns are a cause of gun murders, ScottE.

#61 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-07-30 11:24 PM | REPLY

Thanks Captain Obvious now tell me who is buried in Grants tomb and what color is Grants white horse.

#62 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-31 12:53 AM | Reply

"They can be used to prevent a killing...they can be used for self defense."
By threat of killing.
Guns are meant to kill living things, or destroy inanimate things, by shooting bullets at said things.
The way guns were used at Newtown is consistent with their intended use.

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Just like scientists have "faith" in gravity, right? It's no different from a religion then, right?

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2021-07-31 01:38 AM | Reply

Misused?
The product was used as intended. It worked exactly as advertised.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Gonna go with a big fat no on this one.

Unless there's an ad of a creepy looking momma's boy shooting up a school...you're reaching.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2021-07-31 01:45 AM | Reply

They can be used to prevent a killing...they can be used for self defense.
They can be used for sport shooting such as FITASC.
They can be used for hunting which does involve killing animals.

That's a weak argument.

The only non-killing use of a gun is sport shooting.

Otherwise you have offensive action, defensive action or hunting (offensive action of a sort...).

In the end of purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. What that's fired towards is the intention of the user.

But for Snoofy to say a gun was used "properly" to kill children is incorrect as well.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2021-07-31 01:58 AM | Reply

It was used as intended by the shooter. While being used, it functioned properly as designed.

The guilt, innocence, or age of the human target is irrelevant.

See Also: The gun that killed Tamir Rice. There was no weapons malfunction that day.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 09:40 AM | Reply

With respect to advertising:

Advertising was part of the case that the plaintiffs brought.

Here is some backstory:
Remington can be sued over AR-15 rifle ads linked to Sandy Hook massacre, court rules
www.thestar.com
"The majority said that while most of the lawsuit's claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law."

And why shouldn't they be allowed to be sued over that?
It's not the properly functioning gun they're being sued for. It's the advertising.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 09:57 AM | Reply

"Just like scientists have "faith" in gravity, right? It's no different from a religion then, right?"

LOL!
I have "faith" that guns will be used to commit 10,000 murders this year.
You don't?

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 10:02 AM | Reply

you think the problem can be solved by removing the guns....which by the way is never going to happen.

#54 | POSTED BY SCOTTE

But we can reduce the number of deadly weapons available to violent offenders by better regulation.

#69 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-07-31 10:33 AM | Reply

"you think the problem can be solved by removing the guns"

Again with the all or nothing straw man arguments.
The solutions invoked in other modern countries don't solve gun violence.
They abate it.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 11:14 AM | Reply

But we can reduce the number of deadly weapons available to violent offenders by better regulation.

#69 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2021-07-31 10:33 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

I agree and I'm all for it. Ive said so several times on different threads. The person you need to convince is Snoofy who believes that since gun crimes are still being committed that proves regulations are useless.

Background checks blocked 300,000 gun sales last year, but that doesn't mean the wrong people aren't going to get guns.

I'm all for red flag laws.
I'm all for no bail to anyone charged with a crime involving a gun.
I'm all for the immediate arrest and no bail for any convicted felon in possession of a gun.
I'm all for the immediate arrest of any person who failed a background check who's in possession of a gun.

#71 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-07-31 12:21 PM | Reply

"The majority said that while most of the lawsuit's claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law."

The basic elements of any civil lawsuit are: duty, breach, causation and damages. In this instance, I question the causation element. What, if any, evidence exists that Lamza, or more importantly the purchaser, his mother, were aware of the "alleged wrongful marketing" and thus in some way motivated by it?

#72 | Posted by et_al at 2021-07-31 03:34 PM | Reply

"What, if any, evidence exists that Lamza, or more importantly the purchaser, his mother, were aware of the "alleged wrongful marketing" and thus in some way motivated by it?"

Good question.

The practical answer is, the kind Remington would rather pay $33M than have enteted into the public record.

And it's certainly in the entire industry's interest to keep the before and after pictures of twenty dead children out of the public record.

It's a real shame they won't print them. A disservice to their memory, really. Showing the pictures of Emmett Till's dead bullet-riddled body precipitated change.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 03:43 PM | Reply

"Background checks blocked 300,000 gun sales last year"

Background checks didn't block 10,000 gun murders last year.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 03:44 PM | Reply

I'm all for red flag laws.

Sounds good when you say it fast, much like "common sense" gun control. Most, if not all red flag, laws carry significant "due process" concerns.

I'm all for no bail to anyone charged with a crime involving a gun.

Again, sounds good when you say it fast. Then you run into the Eighth Amendment and the concept of "excessive bail." Typically, no bail is reserved for capital cases.

I'm all for the immediate arrest and no bail for any convicted felon in possession of a gun.

Immediate arrest of felons in possession of a gun is the norm. See also "excessive bail."

I'm all for the immediate arrest of any person who failed a background check who's in possession of a gun.

How do you determine the person is in possession of a gun? Is the simple failure of NICS background check probable cause to issue a search warrant? I'm skeptical.

#75 | Posted by et_al at 2021-07-31 04:26 PM | Reply

The practical answer is, the kind Remington would rather pay $33M than have enteted[sic] into the public record.

First, you seem to misapprehend how settlement decisions are generally made. It's fundamentally a balancing of risk/reward. Here, Remington's marketing materials are in the public domain and can't be hidden. So, no reward in hiding such information.

Second, the causation question remains no matter Remington's settlement motivations. What, if any, evidence exists that Lamza, or more importantly the purchaser, his mother, were aware of the "alleged wrongful marketing" and thus in some way motivated by it? It is the plaintiff's burden to prove causation. I doubt Remington is in possession of information on that issue.

#76 | Posted by et_al at 2021-07-31 04:52 PM | Reply

"What, if any, evidence exists"

I suspect the settlement was more motivated by the other thing I mentioned: It's worth $33M to skip being tried in the Court of Public Opinion

And there's the bottom line: A million and change, times twenty children of affluent parents? That's a pretty significant discount on true damages.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 05:29 PM | Reply

Most, if not all red flag, laws carry significant "due process" concerns.

10,000 gun murders a year ought to outweigh most any due process concern.

It doesn't. But it ought to. We have a right to life in this country too.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-07-31 05:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort