|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 28, 2021 6:58:47 GMT -5
|
|
46382
Full Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by 46382 on Jul 28, 2021 7:48:51 GMT -5
First, Remington didn't sell anything to the sociopaths responsible for Sandy Hook. Otherwise, I say we road trip to the Remington Store to see what's on sale. Remington manufactures a product. That product was used in a way not intended by the manufacturer.
If my fat ass causes me to have a heart attack and die, then my family ought to be able recover from some flour, sugar and yeast company somewhere. After all they supplied the products to make donuts that I consumed way too many of that led to my demise.
Slope is slippery.
|
|
|
|
Post by sculver7 on Jul 28, 2021 8:46:41 GMT -5
Logic no longer exists in this world. We live in a simulation controlled by morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jul 28, 2021 10:15:32 GMT -5
The movie Runaway Jury without the actual trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 28, 2021 10:37:05 GMT -5
There’s a reason they are trying to settle out of court!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Jul 28, 2021 11:22:27 GMT -5
Which Remington is paying?
"Remington" the ammo maker?
The companies that were held by the "Remington" group, Bushmaster, Marlin and others?
"Remington" the gunmaker in NY?
Or "Remington" the company that filed for bankruptcy?
The article does not state that. Makes a big difference. Is this coming from the former "Remington" as part of the bankruptcy settlements?
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jul 28, 2021 11:47:55 GMT -5
^^^ What he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 28, 2021 12:55:37 GMT -5
Which Remington is paying?
"Remington" the ammo maker?
The companies that were held by the "Remington" group, Bushmaster, Marlin and others?
"Remington" the gunmaker in NY?
Or "Remington" the company that filed for bankruptcy?
The article does not state that. Makes a big difference. Is this coming from the former "Remington" as part of the bankruptcy settlements? My guess is that it would be the Remington that existed during the time of the shooting. Just like Dupont was named in the lawsuit concerning the model 700 trigger issues because they owned Remington during that time. But again, it's just a guess... |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 28, 2021 13:12:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jul 28, 2021 13:34:56 GMT -5
Ah HA!
So it isn't Remington that is offering the $$.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Jul 28, 2021 22:12:48 GMT -5
It was not Remington or any of it's sold off businesses but insurance companies that made the offer. I wonder if the insurance companies were responsible for lawyer fees too.
I did not watch the news to see how they spun it. I will check youtube though.
|
|
|
|
Post by treetop on Jul 29, 2021 4:35:48 GMT -5
Ah HA! So it isn't Remington that is offering the $$. It really does not matter who offered or who’s paying the fact that someone is willing to pay is what’s bad and that will not end up good for us guns ammunition and like products will be even harder and more expensive to own or get |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jul 29, 2021 7:48:41 GMT -5
This sets a very scary precedent, and not just about guns. Alcohol manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, and any number of other products that can be tied to someone's death can now be sued and expect to pay big.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 29, 2021 8:14:34 GMT -5
This sets a very scary precedent, and not just about guns. Alcohol manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, and any number of other products that can be tied to someone's death can now be sued and expect to pay big. And in order to pay it the manufacturer just increased the price of his product. We do the paying. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 29, 2021 8:17:27 GMT -5
This sets a very scary precedent, and not just about guns. Alcohol manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, and any number of other products that can be tied to someone's death can now be sued and expect to pay big. That’s sorta been in play for some time now that’s why the tobacco and alcohol ads have faded away for the most part. We quit having company get together’s with alcohol for liability reasons years ago! |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 29, 2021 8:28:12 GMT -5
Ah HA! So it isn't Remington that is offering the $$. It really does not matter who offered or who’s paying the fact that someone is willing to pay is what’s bad and that will not end up good for us guns ammunition and like products will be even harder and more expensive to own or get In the end, while the version of Remington that existed during the Sandy Hook shootings is gone, these insurance companies aren't trying to settle this out of the goodness of their hearts. They know they are liable for the underwritten amounts and are trying to settle the claim for an amount less than that. |
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jul 29, 2021 9:45:56 GMT -5
It really does not matter who offered or who’s paying the fact that someone is willing to pay is what’s bad and that will not end up good for us guns ammunition and like products will be even harder and more expensive to own or get In the end, while the version of Remington that existed during the Sandy Hook shootings is gone, these insurance companies aren't trying to settle this out of the goodness of their hearts. They know they are liable for the underwritten amounts and are trying to settle the claim for an amount less than that. I don't believe that. How are the mfg. insurance companies liable for the misuse and the illegal actions of someone using their product? The product didn't do anything wrong, it was the person using the product. Besides, just like auto manufacture3rs, the gun industry is supposed to be protected. By allowing this to go on, I feel that this opens up a whole pandoras box of lawsuits. Auto manufacturers, etc. If the Army Core of Engineers builds a water retention device, and the device fails and a person drowns, can they be sued? If a drunk driver kills a person while driving, can the auto manufacturers be sued? No? Well, if a firearm manufacturer can be sued then those entities shouldn't have protection either. Prove to me that there is any fundamental difference between those lawsuits why one shouldn't be sued but the other should. |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jul 29, 2021 10:39:21 GMT -5
In the end, while the version of Remington that existed during the Sandy Hook shootings is gone, these insurance companies aren't trying to settle this out of the goodness of their hearts. They know they are liable for the underwritten amounts and are trying to settle the claim for an amount less than that. I don't believe that. How are the mfg. insurance companies liable for the misuse and the illegal actions of someone using their product? The product didn't do anything wrong, it was the person using the product. Besides, just like auto manufacture3rs, the gun industry is supposed to be protected. By allowing this to go on, I feel that this opens up a whole pandoras box of lawsuits. Auto manufacturers, etc. If the Army Core of Engineers builds a water retention device, and the device fails and a person drowns, can they be sued? If a drunk driver kills a person while driving, can the auto manufacturers be sued? No? Well, if a firearm manufacturer can be sued then those entities shouldn't have protection either. Prove to me that there is any fundamental difference between those lawsuits why one shouldn't be sued but the other should. If the insurance companies weren't liable, then why would they have made the offer they did? |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jul 29, 2021 11:58:54 GMT -5
I don't believe that. How are the mfg. insurance companies liable for the misuse and the illegal actions of someone using their product? The product didn't do anything wrong, it was the person using the product. Besides, just like auto manufacture3rs, the gun industry is supposed to be protected. By allowing this to go on, I feel that this opens up a whole pandoras box of lawsuits. Auto manufacturers, etc. If the Army Core of Engineers builds a water retention device, and the device fails and a person drowns, can they be sued? If a drunk driver kills a person while driving, can the auto manufacturers be sued? No? Well, if a firearm manufacturer can be sued then those entities shouldn't have protection either. Prove to me that there is any fundamental difference between those lawsuits why one shouldn't be sued but the other should. If the insurance companies weren't liable, then why would they have made the offer they did? Please explain how the insurance company, or the manufacturer, is liable for the actions of someone who stole a product, killed the product's owner, then went on a killing spree to "beat his top score" of a video game? For that matter, why isn't the video game manufacturer liable? Why not the drug manufacturer whose medication didn't correct his mental health behavior? Why not the drug manufacturers and the States that decided back in the 70's that state mental hospitals weren't necessary because the pharmaceutical industry could control them at home? |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jul 29, 2021 12:14:34 GMT -5
Isn’t the lawsuit about how the product was marketed?
|
|
