Motley Fool asks 'Should S&W be worried after Remington $73 million settlement'

[DaleA]

I didn't know S&W was being sued by New Jersey. Here's an article from the Motley Fool, a business and investing site, about a suit against S&W. Apparently this suit has been going on since at least March of 2021.

Smith & Wesson is being sued by New Jersey's attorney general over marketing claims the gunmaker made in ads that "gun ownership makes you safer," "carrying concealed firearms enhances your lifestyle," and "it is safer to confront a perceived threat by drawing a [f]irearm."

The state [state of New Jersey] attorney general admits he was trying to be "creative" in going after the gunmaker, and The New York Times has called it "a Trojan horse to expose publicly, for the first time, the inner workings of the gun industry."

Here's the link to the Motley Fool article and the link to a NY Times article titled 'The Most Important Lawsuit You've Never Heard Of'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...c=U531#image=2

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/b...th-wesson.html

[HiBC]

I listened to Glenn Beck discuss the significance of these lawsuits,particularly the Remington one.
Its in the context of "The Great Reset"

With the Remington lawsuit that won the settlement against a Remington that does not exist, the Insurance Company paid it.

What happens when Insurance companies decide firearms manufacturers are a bad risk? "We are cancelling your insurance! " Note Trudeau called for cancelling the insurance of the protesting truck drivers. Shutting down and seizing bank accounts,etc

Banking is another private industry gaining too much power. What happens when banks decline to work with the gun industry?

We may have our second ammendment. That supposedly protects us from government infringement.

But what about not being able to get banking or insurance for being in the gun business? How few conglomerates hold nearly the entire gun industry?

[44 AMP]

With the Remington lawsuit that won the settlement against a Remington that does not exist, the Insurance Company paid it.

No settlement was won.

No court awarded anything.

The settlement was not won, it was reached, by mutual agreement of both parties. And Remington was not one of the parties.

Saying one side "won" is inaccurate, and more than a bit misleading. And, its exactly what the press is saying, I believe for that very reason.

We should not just blindly repeat their phrasing (though it is common) unless our goal is in line with their's.

My goals aren't. How about yours?

[mehavey]

Saying one side "won" is inaccurate...

Oh ? Just "which" side won the money ?

There are non so blind as those who simply will not see...
...the pattern emerging here.

with apologies to Jeremiah, then....

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Oh ? Just "which" side won the money ?

There are non so blind as those who simply will not see...
...the pattern emerging here.

One case does not establish a pattern. Three cases might begin to establish a pattern, but one doesn't. What other cases have there been where a large settlement was reached with a firearms manufacturer over the language and imagery they used in advertising their firearms?

THAT's what this case was about. Unless you know of multiple other such cases that had similar results, there is no pattern emerging here.

[mehavey]

Uuuuhh... I would offer... Remington. Different notes. Same tune.
(and two points do make a straight line even now.)

I would offer California will soon come about w/ the 3rd point to establish a plane.
Again, to not see what is emerging here is quite unfortunate,

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Uuuuhh... I would offer... Remington. Different notes. Same tune.

Offering Remington adds nothing. The Remington case is the only such case that has reached a conclusion.

[mehavey]

Simply because there was no "court" decision is a red herring at best.
The courts allow a case to continue in what becomes "legal shakedown" of the defense;
It's a money drainer -- deliberately sidestepping the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- and eventually killing the industry as we know it today.

...which is exactly the intent.

Again... Jeremiah 5:21 applies.

[44 AMP]

Simply because there was no "court" decision is a red herring at best.

I disagree.

but, let's be clear about what we are talking about here. There is the effect on the law (legal precedent) and then there is the effect on commonly held belief, which is frequently created and driven by inaccurate and slanted reporting to push the anti-gun agenda.

Consider the actual facts, not just the media headlines.

It was an out of court settlement. Therefore, there was no court ruling, and because there was no court ruling there is no legal precedent for future courts to consider.

Next point, while the suit was against Remington, that company no longer exists. There is no Remington to win, or lose anything, anymore. Notice how none of the headlines, or in any of the actual articles I've read does the author ever state that "Sandy Hook parents reach settlement with defunct gunmaker"

It's the people who provided Remington's insurance that made the decision, not Remington. The media makes it sound like Remington agreed to the settlement. They did not, they no longer exist to be able to do so.

And here's another point to ponder, if the gunmaker's marketing is found to be to blame by a court (and NOT the court of public opionion) then wouldn't the advertising agency used ALSO be liable??
Why don't we hear of one of them being sued??
(I suspect its probably because they don't make guns...)

I freely admit that not everyone in the gun industry is a paragon of virtue and there are the "anything for a buck" types and a number of foolish / stupid (in hindsight) decisions have been made. I just don't see how this equates to being responsible for the criminal acts of other people.

[Tom Servo]

The courts allow a case to continue in what becomes "legal shakedown" of the defense

Some courts, in some states, with some judges on that particular case, might allow it to continue. But since an actual judgment was not reached, no legal precedent was set that future litigators can rely on.

For example, the old California pot-metal manufacturers like Jennings and Davis were sued in the early 2000s for product liability due to defects in their products. They settled, and that didn't start a wave of litigation.

Yes, gun-control advocates are fishing for ways around the PLCAA (and even Motley Fool admits that's what's happening), but the Remington case wasn't a success. The Brady Campaign has been bringing these suits for quite some time, and they've always failed, even when the court was sympathetic.

[Aguila Blanca]

Consider also that (as has been stated previously), the Sandy Hook v. Remington case was a state case, brought and heard in state court under state laws in a state where the state judiciary is overwhelmingly liberal. The defendant attempted to have the case thrown out by citing the PLCAA, they initially succeeded, and then the case was reinstated by the [overwhelmingly liberal] state supreme court. The Supreme Court of the United States did not take the appeal, and thus didn't issue any ruling on the case.

Will this encourage other cases? Probably. But the PLCAA has not been rescinded and remains in full force and effect, so any future cases will have to be based on something that can be argued to fall outside of the PLCAA. There is nothing from a Connecticut supreme court decision that is in any way binding on a judge in any other state, so a similar case in another state could very well be thrown out.

I am not happy about the result of the Sandy Hook parents v. Remington case but I don't see it as the beginning of the end for the firearms industry, and I certainly don't see it as indicative of any sort of trend.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." Here we don't even have plural anecdotes; we have one, single blip on the radar.

[mehavey]

We shall simply watch . . . .

[DaleA]

My observation is that the mass media knives came out this weekend on the Remington settlement. Here's three articles from:

1. The New Yorker: The Sandy Hook Settlement with Remington and the Road Ahead on Gun Violence
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...n-gun-violence

2. NBC News: The threat of public embarrassment is the newest weapon in the fight for gun control
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...dgntp#comments

3. MSNBC: The cruel yet effective tactic gun makers use to get men to buy weapons
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...?ocid=msedgntp

As would be expected the articles are NOT pro-gun, (what a surprise) but the comments to the articles overwhelmingly say that trying to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for what someone does with the gun is ridiculous.

Here's a few quotes I found interesting.

1. The New Yorker:

The P.L.C.A.A. was custom-built by the gun lobby, and it enshrines the irresponsibility of gun sellers—a monument to amoral marketing.

There is a separate case, known as Gustafson v. Springfield, which is working its way through the courts in Pennsylvania and directly challenges the constitutionality of the P.L.C.A.A.

I was unaware of this. Maybe it bears watching.

The hope of the Sandy Hook families is that it will put fear into the hearts of all gunmakers. And maybe, with any luck, it will.

2. NBC News:

Even though this outcome is the result of an agreement between the parties and not a trial verdict — and doesn’t include a claim of responsibility — the result is a watershed moment that is surely reverberating in the headquarters of every gun manufacturer, especially those that make and sell assault weapons.

The above was the most even-handed explanation of the settlement I found.

First, assault weapons are disproportionately employed in mass shootings, having been used in more than a third of such events. Second, assault weapons are more lethal than other firearms, both because of their firing capabilities (the speed and action of the bullets after they leave the barrel) and ability to receive large-capacity ammunition magazines (frequently used in mass shootings). And third, assault weapons have increasingly become the de facto symbol of, and weapon of choice for, the more radical, aggressive and heavily armed extremist groups that have appeared in numerous demonstrations held around the country in the last few years.

I'll leave it to everyone here to shake their heads at yet another instance of gun ignorance. The phrase 'more lethal' just grates.

3. MSNBC:

Remington unabashedly capitalized on unrealistic and regressive ideals of masculinity where the intended effect seemed to be to humiliate men into arming themselves with combat weapons. And while it’s a cruel tactic, it's an effective one, given the well-documented data showing that a great way to get men interested in guns is to threaten their masculinity.

And while there’s a widespread myth that testosterone makes men want to buy or use guns, a growing body of research finds that it’s the other way around: Men start producing more testosterone only once they’re handed a gun.

Actually the entire article is an affront, not just to men, but to any rational person. It contains virtually no common sense and IMhO can lead to sever bouts of eye-rolling and head-shaking. Read it for a laugh if you like but it's being put out there as a real article.

[44 AMP]

From the clickbait headline, I just had to look, but only read down to the "read more" button and then said, "there's no barking way I'm wasting more of my time on this crap". Literally, I said that to my self.

Congratulations to MSNBC and Microsoft news, for proving once again they don't care what gets put on the internet under their banner...

I have a hard time giving any credit to the idea that gun advertising plays any role in anyone's decision to buy a firearm, other than making them aware of the model, and its price.

I do recognize the tactic of the anti's going after the "unfair, shaming, unethical" advertising as a way to get at the gun industry, since they are prohibited by law from attacking gunmakers who do not make a defective product.

This tactic could easily be rendered moot if gun makers simply changed the advertising.

That really poor and offensive article on MSNBS (sorry,.. NBC ) does have one point, advertising promoting a "masculine" image should not be something gunmakers bother with today.

That kind of crap should be left to fashion, cologne, and old Rolling Stone song lyrics..

[Tom Servo]

the mass media knives came out this weekend on the Remington settlement.

It should be noted that two of those authors, Spitzer and Sorkin, are long-time gun control advocates. They're going to try and spin this as a win for them.

[Metal god]

It should be noted that two of those authors, Spitzer and Sorkin, are long-time gun control advocates. They're going to try and spin this as a win for them.

Of course and as we've seen over the last 2 years heck maybe 5 years . Regardless of topic , perception maters and is considered fact more then the actual facts . So why should we expect no general precedent to be set based on the bias coverage and resulting perceptions ?

Nobody goes past the first page on there google-foo and that front page is controlled by the narrative "they" want . Who's they ??? Depends on the narrative needing to be set forth but generally speaking they are those that control the info we "get" to read or find digitally . I've done searches on multiple engines that require me to type in the full title of what I'm searching for before I can find it . Even then when the full title is searched . The story , video - whatever is buried many links down from the top and everything above it has very little to do with the actual search .

Two or three years ago I'd need only get to maybe the second word in a title and there was what I was searching for . Now not only does it not come up until the full text is entered there are no suggested search results until I press enter . Where as if you type in egg a billion search results pop up , add a d and another thousand show up then another letter and another thousand results as the program anticipates what you are looking for . Yet when you are looking for something that may go against the narrative . All of a sudden the program brain farts and has NO idea what you could possibly be typing .

It's just one way "they" control what you think you know .

You don't and can't know what you don't know and they like it that way .

[44 AMP]

It's just one way "they" control what you think you know .

"they" don't control what I know, but they certainly do have control over what they put out for public consumption.

If you think about it, this has always been true. The people who provide (sell us) the news put what they want in it. Always have, always will as long as our ability to gather information is in the hands of private people or government agencies.

"history is written by the victors" and our "news" is shaped by the people who produce it.

Doesn't matter if Tituba was actually a witch, if the town crier said she was, that's what people believed.

Al Gore invented the Internet and Hillary was certain to be elected president...
The list is endless and if you just swallow whole the distortions, half truths and out right lies without question, then you're a typical 21st century media consumer...

You want the truth? Go to church. Want a different truth? Go to a different church....

Herr Dr Goebbels is credited with creating the "Big Lie" but he didn't, he just put a modern name to it.

And, its still in common use, more common than ever, today, with the Internet and social media....

[seanc]

Yes, gun-control advocates are fishing for ways around the PLCAA (and even Motley Fool admits that's what's happening), but the Remington case wasn't a success. The Brady Campaign has been bringing these suits for quite some time, and they've always failed, even when the court was sympathetic.

The state [state of New Jersey] attorney general admits he was trying to be "creative" in going after the gunmaker, and The New York Times has called it "a Trojan horse to expose publicly, for the first time, the inner workings of the gun industry."

This is how they bleed us dry, with our own tax dollars to boot. Chicago/Crook County has had numerous lawsuits against the gun industry that took years to complete, not all plaintiffs were still in business to see their ultimate victories while the lawyers fees of the surviving victors were recovered. Throw in a few civil case settlements and you have an industry on the ropes when the insurance companies decide the risk is too great. These are mendacious lawsuits with a goal in mind, the practical elimination of the 2nd Amendment. When you also have Soros and Bloomberg financing these lawsuits in some states paying for they public prosecutors too, it's quite a battle going on behind the scenes.

[ammo.crafter]

S&W should obtain different counsel if their money is at issue.
If they are defended by their liability carrier demand they make a motion for summary judgment.
NJ AG is a known bully and gets his kicks being obnoxious and power hungry.
Look for him to run for the governorship.

[cdoc42]

This is the headline I saw today as I browsed the news items:

Sandy Hook families settle with Remington, marking 1st time gun-maker held liable for mass shooting

Twenty first graders and six staff members were killed in the 2012 massacre.

ByAaron Katersky andEmily Shapiro
February 15, 2022, 7:56 PM
• 8 min read

Completely inaccurate and in contradistinction to the details discussed in this thread. How can legitimate gun owners fight the major media bias?

[DaleA]

I dunno.
Some articles allow you to comment on them and some don't. But even if they allow comments how many people read them. Goodness how many people read past just the inflammatory headline?

I read the comments to articles a lot but many times the comment section just breaks down to two people hurling insults at each other on the order of 'No, you are,' then 'No, YOU are,' then 'No, YOU are a MILLION times.'

We all should thank the mods on this site for preventing such nonsense.

[44 AMP]

How can legitimate gun owners fight the major media bias?

the only way I know is to recognize their lies and distortions, point them out with the actual facts and stick to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on our side.

Now, this will not be as effective as their lies, but what else can we do and remain honest??

Sandy Hook families settle with Remington, marking 1st time gun-maker held liable for mass shooting

For example, just look at the distortions and inaccuracy in the this title...

TO begin with, NO ONE was "held responsible".
Second, the suit was not about the mass shooting, it was about the marketing (advertisements) used and the claim that influenced the mass shooter. NOTHING WAS PROVEN the parties involved AGREED to a settlement and that settlement did NOT assess guilt or responsibility.

Another point is that Remington ceased to exist a couple years ago, so could not agree to anything today. The people who settled with the Sandy Hook families were not Remington, they were the lawyers of the company that insured Remington, doing what they felt best for their client, the insurance company, NOT Remington.

Twenty first graders and six staff members were killed in the 2012 massacre.

was there even any mention of the fact that the killer MURDERED HIS OWN MOTHER, (stealing the rifle) before going to the school? That "minor detail" is usully ignored or glossed over when the anti's talk about the shooting...

The mother is dead. The Killer is dead. The victims are dead, the families felt they had to sue somebody, and sued the seller of the rifle and the maker.

THEY DID NOT WIN. They settled out of court.

Media headlines and articles imlying it was a win are worth less than dung, which can be used as fertilizer, where dishonest news can't...

[cdoc42]

Fighting propaganda is difficult because those who produce it are in control of the communication mechanism.

Look how social media decides who has anything to say. If 44AMP were to post his analysis on Facebook or Twitter it would be on less than 24 hours., maybe even less. Even if he got on Fox, how much would that influence the country? At one time -maybe still- Fox was #1 among the cable news media - Fox-CNN-MSNBC-CNBC. On an INDIVIDUAL basis. Add the latter three together and the total viewing population beat Fox. Now add CBS, NBC, ABC, which are NOT cable but are the major networks historically in the majority of homes every night at news time, 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

When the revolution finally occurs (assuming they WON'T get the guns), those who never watch Fox or Newsmax will wonder what the hell is going on.

[Metal god]

TO begin with, NO ONE was "held responsible".
Second, the suit was not about the mass shooting, it was about the marketing (advertisements) used and the claim that influenced the mass shooter. NOTHING WAS PROVEN the parties involved AGREED to a settlement and that settlement did NOT assess guilt or responsibility.

To be fair the headline said held liable not responsible . I believe there is a legal difference not that the media cares haha .

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by MetalGod

To be fair the headline said held liable not responsible.
I believe there is a legal difference not that the media cares haha .

Perception (manufactured/public) is everything in the game currently afoot.
Adding to that... Never underestimate the tide of emotion's onslaught to erode one's supporting structure.
Emotion & perception if left unchecked, eventually wind up as Law.

To borrow a phrase....
"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence
of external reality is to be tacitly denied by their philosophy.
The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

.