Sandy Hook lawsuit could force Remington to open books

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't understand how the marketing strategy of a company affects someone who steals the product the company is selling. I thought marketing affected and was aimed at people who were going to buy their product. What company has a marketing campaign aimed at thieves?

FlSwampRat said:

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't understand how the marketing strategy of a company affects someone who steals the product the company is selling. I thought marketing affected and was aimed at people who were going to buy their product. What company has a marketing campaign aimed at thieves?

Click to expand...

These folks are following the tobacco litigation strategy--look for them to focus on alleged marketing of all firearms to children. They went after tobacco on such things a Joe Camel that allegedly made smoking "cool". This is aimed at suppressing any ads for firearms that allegedly might appeal to children.

Sounds like Koskoff is blowing smoke,,, wishful thinking.

Makes as much sense as suing McDonald's because the food you stole made you fat!!

I wondered the same thing. The shooter didn't buy his AR, he stole it after he killed his mother. She bought it legally.
So how does their marketing have anything to do with this case? Also, and I may be wrong, but didn't he use an Armalite and not a Remington?

However this ruling will open the door for others to sue where the shooter did buy a specific make of gun. I personally believe that the gaming industry is more to blame by romanticizing these makes and models in their video games.

I also believe that once a few of these lawsuits are thrown out of court (as this SH case should be), other courts may decline to hear new cases citing previous case law.

This isn't a true attack on the 2nd Amendment but another way to back door the gun companies to bankrupt them. I hope future cases will force the suing parties to have to pay for legal defenses of the companies as a way to curb frivolous lawsuits.

larryh1108 said:

Also, and I may be wrong, but didn't he use an Armalite and not a Remington.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it was a Bushmaster and that is/was under the Remington umbrella.

larryh1108 said:

I wondered the same thing. The shooter didn't buy his AR, he stole it after he killed his mother. She bought it legally.
So how does their marketing have anything to do with this case?

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the mother bought the Bushmaster just around Adam Lanza's 18th birthday. This lawsuit is essentially trying to prove that Adam saw an advertisement he thought was cool, and pressured mom to buy the AR. That he later stole and committed mass murder with. Yeah, it is that long of a reach. It is along the same lines as my son sees an ad for McDonald's, eats a bunch of hamburgers, gets fat and heart disease and wants to sue because the burgers look tasty.

Ironic, this, since Remington is such a relative late-comer to the AR-15 business. Almost as though the Bushmaster brand is cursed, too ("Beltway Sniper" et al) ...

herrwalther said:

I read somewhere that the mother bought the Bushmaster just around Adam Lanza's 18th birthday. This lawsuit is essentially trying to prove that Adam saw an advertisement he thought was cool, and pressured mom to buy the AR. That he later stole and committed mass murder with. Yeah, it is that long of a reach. It is along the same lines as my son sees an ad for McDonald's, eats a bunch of hamburgers, gets fat and heart disease and wants to sue because the burgers look tasty.

Click to expand...

You left out the part about stealing the mother's Happy Meals after killing her.

Couldn't Remington counter suit for expenses after they win the case?

It’s like suing Daimler Chrysler after a kid kills his dad, steals his dad’s Mercedes or Smart and runs into a crowd of people.

lechiffre said:

You left out the part about stealing the mother's Happy Meals after killing her.

Click to expand...

Darn. I always forget to commit mindless murder after eating fast food.

boom boom said:

These folks are following the tobacco litigation strategy--look for them to focus on alleged marketing of all firearms to children. They went after tobacco on such things a Joe Camel that allegedly made smoking "cool". This is aimed at suppressing any ads for firearms that allegedly might appeal to children.

Click to expand...

Hopefully someone will figure out how to drag Hollywood and the video game industry into the suit. They've done more to make firearms appeal to children than any gun manufacturer ever has.

Outlaw75 said:

Hopefully someone will figure out how to drag Hollywood and the video game industry into the suit. They've done more to make firearms appeal to children than any gun manufacturer ever has.

Click to expand...

That is why the suit will eventually die because advertising agencies and their corporate clients really do not want to go down this rabbit hole. I suspect the case is all about optics, politics, media, and discovery motions rather than actual money involved.

This is one of the Bushmaster "man card" advertisements the plaintiffs are unhappy about:

https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bushmaster-man-card/#axzz655B9AVoX

I don't have the desire to search out the glamorous ads and graphics that the gaming industry put out to lure their customers. I'd be willing to bet that the gaming industry has done a lot more harm than any ads put out by the gun makers. I believe that this will come out in court when this case is heard. If anyone should be sued, let these people attack the game industry.

alsaqr said:

This is one of the Bushmaster "man card" advertisements the plaintiffs are unhappy about:

https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bushmaster-man-card/#axzz655B9AVoX

Click to expand...

Silly ad .... but not sue-worthy.... IMHO.

All firearms companies ought to take this as a lesson, Imo. There are other ways of promoting firearms, even AR-15s, that are better, that can promote a healthy firearm culture ....sports, hunting, etc., that might be perceived as far less .... tendentious as this.
I know because I've seen them in the past.
The antigunners will object to anything that promotes guns , but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the effectiveness of lawsuits like this and will help the pro-2A cause .... or certainly not actually undercut it.

Tommygunn said:

Silly ad .... but not sue-worthy.... IMHO.

All firearms companies ought to take this as a lesson, Imo. There are other ways of promoting firearms, even AR-15s, that are better, that can promote a healthy firearm culture ....sports, hunting, etc., that might be perceived as far less .... tendentious as this.
I know because I've seen them in the past.
The antigunners will object to anything that promotes guns , but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the effectiveness of lawsuits like this and will help the pro-2A cause .... or certainly not actually undercut it.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the law is unconstitutionally broad for 1A consideration but Remington's lawyers barely raised that as an issue and only cited one out of state case in support for that position.

The evidentiary fishing-expedition is one of the larger goals of many civil suits.

Another way to pressure the defendant to the settlement table.


Todd.

Might as well sue the liquor industry for drunk driving deaths

Attorney: What part did you play in the incident?
Remington: Um, bro, we were not there. The dude stole a gun form someone else. Why you drinking boomer kool aid man!