Remington Bushmaster Sandy Hook Rifle
In this Jan. 28, 2013, file photo, firearms training unit Detective Barbara J. Mattson, of the Connecticut State Police, holds up a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, produced by Remington Arms and the same make and model of gun used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook School shooting, for a demonstration during a hearing of a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws, at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Dave Collins, AP

The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators in 2012.

Remington, which made the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used in the massacre, also agreed to allow the families to release numerous documents they obtained during the lawsuit including ones showing how it marketed the weapon, the families said Tuesday.

The families and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. They said their focus was on preventing future mass shootings.

Messages seeking comment were left for Remington and its lawyers Tuesday.

Adam Lanza's entry point into Sandy Hook Elementary School
Adam Lanza’s entry point into Sandy Hook Elementary School (courtesy Connecticut State Police)

The civil court case in Connecticut focused on how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter — a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle — was allegedly marketed targeting younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. In one of Remington’s ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

Remington had argued there was no evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.

Bushmaster man card advertisement

The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. But the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

The case was watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country because it had the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearms.

Adam Lanza

Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy for a second time in 2020 and its assets were later sold off to several companies. The manufacturer was weighed down by lawsuits and retail sales restrictions following the school shooting.

Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting, used the rifle made by Remington and legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on Dec. 14, 2012, after having killed his mother at their Newtown home. He then used a handgun to kill himself as police arrived.

Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder,” according to Connecticut’s child advocate.

Previous Post
Next Post

350 COMMENTS

      • The only way to roll this back is to start using chevy, ford, toyota, etc for all vehicle accidents. Sue restaurants and grocery stores for deaths related to heart disease, diabetes, etc.

        Fight stupid with stupid until these fools realize what they have done.

        • The way they market cars showing drag races and speedy driving it should make it easy to sue a car manufacturer using the same precedent. at least in CT.

        • “The way they market cars showing drag races and speedy driving“

          You are delusional, no automobile company airs commercials showing people “drag racing” on public highways. And “speedy driving” is perfectly lawful, as long as the speed limit is not exceeded.

          “Alcohol companies”

          Please advise which “alcohol companies” have conducted marketing campaigns showing underage consumption of their products or consumption while operating a motor vehicle on the highways or other illegal behaviors.

          Face it, bushmaster made a bad marketing decision and chose to feature their product in violent video games where criminal behavior was the norm.

        • Miner,
          Have you ever seen commercials for alcohol companies? Almost all of them are marketed to young people. You could say they’re pushing their product on a vulnerable population.

          I’ve seen plenty of sports car commercials showing someone driving fast. It gives the disclaimer of a closed course, but how often do sports car owners only speed on a closed course? We all know what the marketing is about. You can lie to yourself if you want.

          This is a serious question. List the ways that Bushmaster showed their product being used in an illegal manner.

        • hummm miner of holes
          I seem to remember MANY hundreds of car commercials of cars ‘carving up canyons” at high speeds.
          yep they do market cars for “speed’ with one little warning “Filmed on closed road” Like your average person can get roads closed to drive on for the day?

        • Car companies all have fine print disclosures in the commercials and marketing that says something along the lines of done on professional course with professional drivers, do not attempt, etc…

          Media spinning this as gun manufacturers are liable, but this really is an indictment on Remmington’s marketing fuck up. This is the same as the Joe Cool camel marketing that was argued that it targeted kids.

        • “an indictment on Remmington’s marketing fuck up”

          Murder is illegal. The man card silliness isn’t saying go commit murder in order to be a man. The marketing doesn’t even show anyone being shot does it? Is it not up to the buyer to use the product in a legal manner?

        • “Almost all of them are marketed to young people“

          Not to children, just to young adults who are lawful consumers of alcoholic beverages.

          “I’ve seen plenty of sports car commercials showing someone driving fast“

          Driving fast is not illegal.

          Bushmaster weapons are featured in COD, where the only goal is to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest time possible, without any consequences.

          Adam Lanza spent hours rehearsing his attack using call of duty, a first person shooter game that is used by the United States Army to train soldiers.

          Bushmaster knew, or should’ve known an attack was a possible outcome of their reckless marketing campaign.

        • “The marketing doesn’t even show anyone being shot does it?“

          Yes, in call of duty the players kill hundreds if not thousands of people during their ‘play’, using bushmaster branded weapons.

        • Miner,
          Killing fictional enemies in a video game isn’t illegal. It isn’t illegal to have your product licensed in a game like that. Did Bushmaster have control over the game? You seem to be fixated on the game. Why aren’t they being sued?

          Murder is illegal. Bushmaster didn’t kill anyone because they licensed their product in COD. Do you know how many people have played games like that without murdering people? If the marketing caused him to commit murder, then where are the other people going on murdering sprees with their Bushmasters?

        • “start using chevy, ford, toyota, etc for all vehicle accidents”

          you don’t understand. the purpose of the lawsuit is not to bring justice, but to obtain a tool to use against you. if you start suing other manufacturers, they’ll just turn it into another tool to use against you. the problem is not the law, but the people behind all this driving these outcomes.

        • The problem with that, Derek, is that suing car companies is a good way for globalists to bankrupt all the car companies. And thus, getting Americans out of their cars for good. This has been a goal for years and forcing Americans to walk everywhere. For “Climate Change” of course. And since they have had no luck getting people to buy electric vehicles, suing the car makers out of business is another way of doing just that. Kind of like getting rid of the Second Amendment: Just sue the gun makers out of business and voila! End goal accomplished.

        • Miner youu took the preceding statements about car ads then added your own falsehoods to them and presented them what was said. Your a lier and anyone who gives even a cursory examination to the original post can see that. So to sum up you are a lier any a stupid one at that.

        • Miner49er

          Good lord you are such a bloviating little liar, if you aren’t making huge and fallacious leaps of logic like “man card is code for mass murder” you’re outright lying. Lanza played a lot of Call of Duty but he didn’t use it to prepare for the killing, he was just a shut-in nerd addicted to video games. HOW would a game where you move with keys, aim with a mouse, and respawn when you make mistakes and die prepare you for any sort of real-life attack? A game like that teaches you nothing about actually shooting guns or using real-life tactics. Why would he even need use a game where the enemies are armed adults to prepare for an attack on 6 year old children, and WHY would he even NEED to? Post your source on this claim or take an L, because I can’t find a single article or document saying he used CoD to “prepare” for the attack.

          Nor does, as you falsely claim, the military use CoD as training. It’s not even a remotely realistic simulation of a gunfight, the closest to that would be something like Arma III and it’s still nothing alike real life. The “video games” that the military uses aren’t computer FPSes like Lanza played, they’re virtual ranges or shoothouses where you use a modified gun and even then that’s not the primary method of training. The vast majority of it is real-life range time or force-on-force training because that’s the only way to ever actually get good at it

      • Remington did not agree to this deal. It was the insurance lawyers following the Remington bankruptcy. Who knows. Maybe Soros, Bloomersshortypants, OBummer, Xiden (naw…he’s not cognizant enough) and/or their ilk funded/facilitated/pushed the settlement to set anti-gun manufacturer precedent. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes?

        All that’s certain…..Liberals hate guns and man cards……

      • “This sets precedent for all shooting victims to sue manufactures. ”

        Perhaps not. The matter is “settled”, not a court verdict. That might mean there is no “precedent” established.

    • WHO settled? There is no “Remington”. GONE bankrupt, out of business, sold off all assets.

      Did Remington’s former (spineless as are they all) insurance company settle/buy off the families?

      How much are the slimeball ambulance chasing prog lawyers skimming off? 75%?

      • You know the insurance settled. It’s cheaper to pay off the victims instead of continuing with the very expensive litigation process. The bottom line is the only thing that matters to the insurance company.

        • “It’s cheaper to pay off the victims instead of continuing with the very expensive litigation process“

          That’s ridiculous, they settled for $73 million, an amount that exceeds by 10 times the maximum possible litigation costs.

          They settled because they knew they would lose.

      • “How much are the slimeball ambulance chasing prog lawyers skimming off? 75%?”

        possibly all. “their focus was on preventing future mass shootings”, so money is no object except to the lawyers.

    • Why are we mentioning the SCUMBAG killer’s name and posting his photo? Talk about a goddamn loser. Why are we making him famous?

      No mention that this is the “old” Remington… as I understand it, at least.

      • Remington will recover any real monetary setbacks not covered by ‘insurance’ along with potentially ‘raised’ future premiums simply by raising future firearms prices. It’s a vicious circle of Carnivore Capitalism, and predatory blood thirsty lawyers.

        Remington is a ‘Bidniz’ not a 2/A Constitutional Patriot. Big Bizpower elite doesn’t two shits in the litter box about your 2nd/A gun rights. They’ll just hire private contractors if it ever got bad. Their only ‘bottom line’ is the Profit level for their shareholders and their attendant bonuses. Wouldn’t surprise me to see some fifty k double rifles and custom engraved skeet guns, but But No AR’s in their executive management gun cabinets? Also, if you checked their company political campaign donations, they probably donate to both parties, like almost all other ‘big’ businesses do.

        Good thing we have an even more important case to worry about with the Irwin/CRS Firearms Auto Key Card case where the privately retained Defense Attorneys will take it all the way to a jury because they get paid accordingly. I just made another donation to their fund me page.

        • If there was a Remington still in existence, the would have to sell several hundred thousand firearms to cover that payout.

      • Couldn’t agree more about not using the cowardly little bedwetter’s name.

        This rifle was stolen from his Mom. Was she trying to “get her man card reissued?”

        Poor woman back in 2012 maybe thought you can’t just identify as whatever sex you want, no card required. We’ve made so much progress now. /sarcasm off

        • “This rifle was stolen from his Mom”

          hush. facts are irrelevant in tribal warfare, “who” is all that matters.

    • Not one thin dime should have been paid by Remington.
      I am not impressed by their advertising optics though. I guess they bought peace.
      On the other hand the school district should have paid for negligence in security.

    • don’t look for logic in all of this…emotion played a major role…the courts aren’t supposed to function that way…..but sometimes it happens….Remington, as it turned out…proved an easy, convenient target in an anti-gun state….

  1. One simple answer to stop all school shootings, arm the people and get rid of no gun zones! If there were people armed at this school this would have never happened. How many more will die before people wake up??

    • IIRC, the first 2 killed at the school were the principal and some manner of a counselor who saw the boy coming on surveillance and went to stop him at the door, which was of course “locked down” while right beside a wide expanse of real purty glass, one shot and it collapsed into tiny pieces, two more and they were no longer a problem for him. I thought at the time that if one had an AR and the other a 12-ga pump, the story would have stopped there. Somebody should have been sued, but it was not Remington.

    • You know what stopped school shootings? Remote learning. From 6 March 2020 to 16 September 2020, no school shootings. Schools were closed or online.

    • Generally speaking public schools would rather “feel safe” than be safe.
      They don’t give a shirt about real safety.

  2. The gun industry is pro business; they make business decisions, not principle decisions.

    The danger here is that the door is now open to crushing lawsuits based not on the product, but the advertising of the product. The argument can be made that, every advertisement is a clever attempt to persuade “at risk” teens” to fulfill dreams of retribution through the purchase of firearms.

    Remington bolstered the power of “the shoutdown” long used by radicals to silence opposition.

    The bottom line reasoning of the plaintiffs is that Remington intentionally wanted “at risk” persons to have firearms in order to kill people who tormented the “at risk” persons. That Remington had discovered an under served market (crazy people) that represented massive new profits.

    • quote—————–The bottom line reasoning of the plaintiffs is that Remington intentionally wanted “at risk” persons to have firearms in order to kill people who tormented the “at risk” persons. That Remington had discovered an under served market (crazy people) that represented massive new profits.————quote

      Yes Remington did indeed target the crazies as well as the far right paramilitary lunatic fringe and it worked out financially big time for them until it all blew up in their face with Adam Lanza.

    • Yep, you nailed it. It was likely far cheaper to settle than to continue to fight the lawsuit. And I agree that it’s probably only going to embolden future lawsuits against the industry.

      • If it costs more than $73 million to battle this in court we have much bigger problems than attacks on the 2A here.

        • Dev, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know of many problems bigger than an attack on my civil rights.

        • The ‘settlement’ doesn’t reflect court costs or lawyers fees that much in an insurance case. Defense Attornies handle the case on a contract amount, not a percentage of the settlement like the dense lawyers get. But had it gone to trial and the judge or jury didn’t like evil black guns they could have awarded 200 million in damage and punitive amounts in a trial, which might exceed the insurance company’s policy liability limit and come out of Remington’s pocket. So that -in terms of money out of profit’s expenses–would have ‘encouraged’ Remington to ‘cave’, again, because Big commerical Biz does not lose any love for your preservation of your rights.

          We can fix all of this insidious caustic erosion of the 2nd/A if we take back the House and Senate, NEXT NOVEMBER! Then we very SERIOUSLY deliver the Consent and Command to our newly elected legislation to Call for Brandon step down and retire or be impeached, and the first item of law making to then REPEAL THE 68 GCA, THE NFA ACT, AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS VIOLATING GUN CONTROL.
          Otherwise, this will ‘Nevaahh’–as they say down South– End for any good for anybody.

    • “The argument can be made that, every advertisement is a clever attempt to persuade “at risk” teens” to fulfill dreams of retribution through the purchase of firearms“

      Exactly, and that’s why you don’t see Chevy or Ford showing their product with teens behind the wheels engaging in criminal behavior.
      You don’t see dodge or jeep paying for a product placement in GTA in order to boost sales to adolescents.

      Do you see the purchaser getting his “Man Card” when he buys a Dodge Viper or a Kaw Ninja? No because that would be irresponsible, pandering to the weak minded in search of mindless power to give their empty life meaning.

      • Did the shooter buy the gun based on marketing, or anything for that matter? Didn’t he just take whatever was available? The marketing had nothing to do with it.

        • Thanks to Adam Lanza’s crazy mother, he was immersed in bushmasters militaristic advertising practices.

          He was also a video game player, where bushmaster paid for product placement so that Adam could use his fave cosplay M16 to murder innocent citizens on the screen, a rehearsal for his future actions.

        • “Thanks to Adam Lanza’s crazy mother, he was immersed in bushmasters militaristic advertising practices.”

          Explain what you mean by that. I don’t see the connection.

          If you’re saying that the video game is responsible for turning him into a killer, then why aren’t they suing the video game? Was it a game about killing children?

        • He didn’t buy the gun. His mother did. And he murdered his mother to get access to the safe where the guns were stored.

        • “Explain what you mean by that. I don’t see the connection.”

          What I like about you….. To Dude. ♥

          For years now you have been faithfully answering every piece of agitprop I post.

          It’s like you can’t see my propaganda no matter how much you stare. I like that.

          I also like that no matter how many times I ghost you when my argument falls apart, you always come running back for more on the next post.

          But what I really like is that you reply as if I was coming from a place of honesty, when most other posters have already correctly deduced I am nothing but a licentious partisan slut. A flagitious chicken molesting spawn of lamentable genetic material.

          You’re a peach dude, and I know I’m a day late, but here is my Valentine to you… ♥ Always stay as mine… Miner49er’s favorite whipping post. ♥

          ♥♥♥

        • LOL
          Sometimes questions aren’t really meant to be answered. They’re meant to be food for thought. I haven’t given up hope on Miner49er.

          Sincerely,
          Dude

        • “licentious partisan slut. A flagitious chicken molesting spawn of lamentable genetic material“

          I am continuously surprised by your comprehensive grasp of the language, sadly there’s no intellectual content however.

        • Huntmaster,
          Exactly, which is why this case is weird. There is no way the marketing had anything to do with the shooting. It would be a stretch, but maybe the families could argue the case if the shooter went out and specifically obtained a Bushmaster rifle after viewing their marketing.

          I think the legal team started with hey we’re going to sue them. Then they researched until they found a way to do it.

        • MinorIQ,

          “I am continuously surprised by your comprehensive grasp of the language, sadly there’s no intellectual content however.”

          Except for the part about “comprehensive grasp of the language”, a near-perfect description of your average post, MinorIQ.

          You are arguing that a psychotic, mentally-unbalanced mass murderer was influenced by “marketing” of a gun . . . he didn’t buy. He killed his own mother (clue #1) and stole it.

          You remain too stupid to insult. Go pound salt in your @$$.

      • God……. you’re mindless rambling and distorted reasoning are a classic example of the mindset that needs to be removed from the gene pool…… you’re a very sick individual….. seek help

      • Hey moron, the us military has there own first person shooter game called America’s army, they don’t need cod and don’t use cod.
        Nice bs your trying to push.
        And no Manufacturer is paying to get there products in vid games as game designers will do research as they look for realism.
        More lies and bs from you.

        Keep proving your ignorance over and over.

        • When I was in the military we didn’t use “Games” we had miles gear. We used blanks and trained. Live rounds were for the range or combat. All Strictly planned and monitored.

      • Granted I haven’t seen every Remington or firearm company ad in existence, but so far none have shown a teenager with an AR-15 using it in an illegal manner. Which is moot point anyways, because the mother bought the firearm and he killed her after stealing it.
        It’s alright, you can admit your thought exercise made no sense.

    • And gun manufacturers are barely allowed to advertise in the public media anyway. Other than gun websites and NRA magazines…I guess they can at lots of disclaimers “please use responsibly, for target shooting and lawful use only, any suicidal or homicidal thoughts please get help…” etc

      Note even if they had cool looking army guys with rifles or “get your man card back” in ads, if anything the ads show a paramilitary/swat look, it’s quite the jump to conclude you should go murder children at a school. Maybe go to war or join the police.

      • “…if anything the ads show a paramilitary/swat look, it’s quite the jump to conclude you should go murder children at a school.”

        Know your enemy. The theory is that “at risk” teens get all amped up at seeing military weapons and gear as making someone look/be really cool, with cool looking guns. These “at risk” teens are always looking for ways to look cool, also. Then, the “at risk” teens get access to really cool guns and gear. But then, there are no really enemy military forces to fight with, so the “at risk” teens go find the first target they run across, or maybe plan a campaign, and go shoot up a mall, or school. None of this would happen without really cool firearm advertising, which is intentionally targeted to “at risk” teens.

        Now, if that broke your brain trying to follow the reasoning….that is what you are up against trying to deal with the anti-gun mob.

        • Blame the gun makers instead of the person (s) pulling the trigger!! Total Bull! Makes as much sense as a man crashing through a parade of people, and his car was to blame🤪

  3. I hope this opens the flood gates for endless corporate lawsuits.
    Hammer the auto makers, alcohol companies, drug companies, hospitals, tech companies and media outlets. Every one of them has made or sold a product that either directly or indirectly caused, facilitated or encouraged a harmful action toward thousands of individuals if not tens of thousands.

    If we’re gonna clown we may as well lean into it and clown down as hard as possible.

    • True Shire-man and they have already been sued as well in the past and recent past but they did not have the Federal Law that protected them like the Gun Industry did. At least until now.

      • federal law applies to more than this industry, and is still in place. the precedence is for the state of connect the dots.

      • Federal law prevents junk lawsuits designed to financially bankrupt the firearms companies.
        But it also protects all manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.
        But knowing that does not fit your narrative.
        Derp.

    • “Every one of them has made or sold a product that either directly or indirectly caused, facilitated or encouraged a harmful action“

      That’s not the issue, it was all about the criminally negligent marketing, Profits over people.

        • Don’t worry, big Pharma pays for their negligent marketing and operations.

          “NEW YORK, Dec 16 (Reuters) – A federal judge overturned a roughly $4.5 billion settlement that legally shielded members of the Sackler family who stand accused of helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, a decision that threatened to upend the bankruptcy reorganization of their company, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP.

          U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said in a written opinion on Thursday the New York bankruptcy court that approved the settlement did not have authority to grant the Sacklers the legal protection from future opioid litigation that formed the linchpin of Purdue’s reorganization.

          Purdue said it would appeal the decision.“

          Let’s compare, $73 million settlement compared to the proposed $4,500 million settlement…

          Yep, it’s not just the arms industry that is held accountable for their negligent marketing…

          And if you think Pfizer pharmaceutical has harmed you, file suit, it’s your right.

          And in my opinion, laws limiting your ability to sue are clearly unconstitutional, they limit your right to ‘petition the government for a redress of grievances’.

        • Miner you idiot the case you bring up has nothing to do with why people are turning on pfizer now. If you weren’t running on the missing half of biden’s brain you would know the laws regarding litigation of vaccine cases are a completely different.

      • These companies addict, poison, maim, and kill millions of people every year — and reap billions upon billions in profit from it. But they don’t sell guns and their marketing campaigns are “safe,” so it’s okay. Got it.

        • “But they don’t sell guns and their marketing campaigns are “safe,” so it’s okay. Got it.“

          No, pharmaceutical companies have had to pay out literally billions in judgments and settlements because of their negligent practices.

          Are you that unaware of current events on the legal front here in the United States?

      • @Miner49er

        “That’s not the issue, it was all about the criminally negligent marketing, Profits over people.”

        False.

        This was a civil matter, a lawsuit over basically marketing. Its was not a criminal matter. There was no criminal action that could be bought against Remington here. It was a lawsuit and not a criminal trial. There was no “criminally negligent marketing” or “Profits over people” for Remington.

        The nine families streamline their case into a single claim: That Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by marketing the AR-15-style rifle to civilians. They bought the case, Remington just defended against it. The defense by Remington was about defending against the claim, it was not about “Profits over people” or a criminal charge.

        The claim of the families for their lawsuit was not proven or shown to be true. Remington is not held liable as there was no judgement by the court or a jury that held them liable.

        The families wanted to settle and they did. In end the families case was about a payday.

        This is not to say their loss was not real and they were not grieving, and intentionally set out to make this about a payday. But if you settle a lawsuit you are literally saying (in plain language) “yep, will take the money.” The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook decided their family members were worth at least a payday of $73 million (“yep, will take the money”).

        There comes a time in many lawsuits where a law suit you bring simply can not be won for the bigger prize. The families had not proven their claim, just saying it and showing a bunch of stuff implying it and tugging at heart strings is not proof. Sandy Hook was a horrible thing, but he lawsuit had reached the point where the families had to substantiate their claims with proof Remington intended to violate what the families claim, they couldn’t prove it. If the families continued or Remington continued the families would have lost and gotten nothing. The amount of Remington insurance coverage would have let Remington continue and go for a win but it would have cost millions more.

        Remington could have the same victory by settling for less than those millions more to continue. That Remington victory either by a outright win or settling would not be held liable for violating the marketing claims of the families.

        Remington was not responsible for the misuse of this firearm. How could they be? Remington didn’t supply the firearm to the kid, the kid stole it from his mom and shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home.

        This was a troubled kid. A report issued by the Office of the Child Advocate in November 2014 said that Lanza had Asperger syndrome and as a teenager had depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but concluded that they had “neither caused nor led to his murderous acts.” But the report went on to say, “his severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems … combined with an atypical preoccupation with violence … (and) access to deadly weapons … proved a recipe for mass murder.”

        Remington is not responsible for mental health defects of people who misuse rifles they stole.

        There was no criminal activity or negligence here on part of Remington. There was no contributory negligence here on part of Remington. There was no intent to commit any violation of law either criminal or civil on part of Remington. And in the end Remington is not liable and the families accepted a settlement payday of $73 million.

      • Yeah, MinorIQ, that “criminally negligent marketing” really made a difference . . . for a gun the perp didn’t buy. He killed his mother and stole it, you absolute retard.

        Do you ever listen to yourself, like . . . when you comment?? That is such a bomfozzlingly brain-dead argument, I am slightly shocked even a nitwit like you would attempt to use it. Nah, actually, I’m not. After all, you are the uneducated nitwit who believes that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution supports “across the board” gun control.

        You remain too stupid to insult. I would say I’m disappointed in your level of idiocy, but I never had much hope for you, anyway. Go micturate up a cable, you Leftist/fascist troll.

    • the liberal courts will just throw out every thing you just mentioned….
      You cant see that already??….
      There’s only one way to stop this treason and attack on rights…… the tree of liberty is thirsty 🙂

    • You forgot pharma. I’m betting that there was some pharma involved in this (and many other) mass shootings if not most of them.

      • Andrew,

        I don’t know if you are right, or not. Strangely (he says, with tongue firmly in cheek), the data on that is not made generally available. Quelle surprise!!!

  4. Yes, Lanza bought stole that rifle because of the great marketing from Remington.

    Makes as much sense as drop kicking a squirrel because I saw someone eat an orange once.

    • Ah yes, the old “Murder your parent” loophole. Between that and the “Gun Show” loophole it’s a miracle there is anyone left alive in the USA.

      • according to gun-control advocates dire predictions around rivers of blood in the streets the population of the United States reached zero in 2007.

    • A kid crazy enough to murder his mother in order to use her guns to kill grade schoolers is not going to be deterred by any law you can even imagine, unless it involves throwing away a key or pronouncing him dead.

  5. “Marketing” is a crime, free speech is protected, except for “marketing”.

    So many holes in their argument, and Remington caved.

    I’m now saddened that I own Remington products.

    • @ AR Libertarian

      They didn’t “cave”.

      There were tons of holes in the other sides arguments, there was no evidence against Remington.

      The lawsuit had reached a point where it would have cost Remington a lot more to eventually win and they would have. It was better they get out then, rather than spend about a couple hundred million more to take it to a win. It was a business decision, and that’s what businesses do.

      • “I feel like there has to be more to this story”

        there is – who is behind it all, and where they get all their money from.

        but can’t talk about that ….

  6. Gun companies will now advertise their wares for use in sport and hunting. It will be interesting to see if this lawsuit will affect advertisements with a distinct self-defense angle. It may even have an effect on how firearms look and feel; the military appearance may be toned down in favor of a sporting appearance. The industry will likewise try new advertising venues.

    I think the industry will survive with a little creativity. Which companies survive is the question.

    • “Gun companies will now advertise their wares for use in sport and hunting“

      Exactly, rather than the criminally negligent marketing they engaged in by purchasing product placement in violent video games.

      • Hey, MinorIQ,

        How many ads for firearm companies have you actually seen?? And how many of them showed people engaging in illegal behavior? Or are you just lying again, as usual???

        You ought to enlist Tipper Gore in your campaign to persecute firearms manufacturers and video game developers . . . you two apparently share an authoritarian Leftist/fascist mindset.

        Your Leftist fantasy about blaming gun manufacturers apparently hits all your “feelz” buttons. Let’s see . . . would that mean that McDonald’s should be liable for “reckless” advertising for showing relatively healthy people eating their (distinctly unhealthy) burgers?

        Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, MinorIQ.

      • I remember seeing the rifle pulled out of the trunk of his car on TV and remember the reporter saying that only 2 handguns were used inside the school

        • No, you were misremembering what you saw.

          Adam went into the school with the bushmaster, he left the shotgun in the trunk of the car where it was later found and removed by the police.

      • Perhaps Infinity Ward should have been sued over their Call Of Duty series?

        These days kids play Phantom Forces via Roblox.

        • WOULD SEEM THOSE GAMES WOULD DO MORE TO INSPIRE THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOR THAN REMINGTON’S MARKETING ADS….

  7. If Lanza had to shoot his way in through a window that’s because the school recognized a legitimate security threat requiring the locking of doors; as such it is the school who is negligent in failing to provide armed guards at each point of entry.

  8. Detective Barbara J. Mattson holding the rifle. Cause, can you really trust a person that has a porcupine on their head?

    • Amazingly stoopid for Remington to cave. That lanza boy murdered his mom. How is that ” marketed” to his defective brain? Oh well. Why didn’t the aggrieved parents sue Sandy Hook school for lack of security??? Always the gat-never the shooter.

        • “it’s always the gun doncha’no…..after all,…they’re so “icky” ”

          Wow, man. You livin’ on some other planet? “icky”? “icky”?

          Get a grip: guns are evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty. Like, really.

          And dumb.

  9. Wonder why the Sandy Hook school was almost immediately erased, and yet Columbine stands as a tribute to the fallen. Me thinks Sandy Hook was a Obama/ATF scam, red flag event. Kinda like Mandalay Bay….How did the hard drive remove itself from shooters computer in a room locked from the inside? Nobody has ever answered that question.

    • “Me thinks Sandy Hook was a Obama/ATF scam, red flag event. Kinda like Mandalay Bay…. “

      If you truly Harbor those delusions, and own lethal weapons, I fear for the safety of your family, friends and neighbors because your grasp of reality is rather tenuous.

      • @Miner49er Based on your previous nonsensical ramblings on previous posts, your reply is non-sequitur. Go away.

        • Careful he may hit you with an ad hominem and follow up by moving the goalposts to show how his argument works.

        • “Careful he may hit you with an ad hominem“

          Yeah, when they don’t have an intelligent response to my comments, they accuse me of everything from idiocy to sexual deviance.

          No problem, it’s just words… And it’s actually quite entertaining.

        • No, MinorIQ, we don’t ACCUSE you of idiocy, we simply point out your idiocy when you (reliably and regularly) show your @$$, and make a fool of yourself on this blog. We ACCUSE you of being a Leftist/fascist, because you are.

          Get it straight, son.

        • Miner MINOR49er Regret to inform your sorry posterior but the whole case involving the Sandy Hook people has no basis in fact. There is absolutely NO correlation between the incident and the Remington advertisement. You anti-gun radicals played to people’s ‘heart strings’ rather than present a real case showing any liability on the part of Remington Arms.

          This case should have been dismissed long time ago.

          You Lefties are not interested in “justice”‘ you are only interested in disarming the American people one gun at a time.

      • S tf u you insufferable baboon…..
        Do the world a favor and go play with yourself in your mommy’s basement… pos