Posted on 02/20/2022 1:31:55 PM PST by ransomnote
It’s been well established that companies that exploit gender stereotypes to prey on women’s self-doubt are harmful to society. But the lawsuit filed by families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting against gun manufacturer Remington might help to show how men are just as vulnerable to damaging gender ideals.
The case sets a novel and remarkable precedent for gun manufacturers to be held liable for expressly preying on men’s specific vulnerabilities.
The Remington settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held accountable for its product’s role in a mass murder in the U.S. Gun companies have been shielded from liability when their products are used in a crime because of a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
SNIP
For now, one survivor and the families of nine other victims killed in the Sandy Hook shooting will receive $73 million in a settlement from Remington because of the company's predatory marketing; lawyers representing the families argued that the company “tapped into anxieties of masculinity” to sell men military-grade rifles.
"Consider your man card reissued." That’s how a 2012 ad from Remington read below the image of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. It was featured in Maxim, a magazine whose readership is primarily made up of young impressionable men. The semi-automatic rifle Remington was marketing was similar to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, which Adam Lanza used a few months later to mass murder 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Is that a 50 BMG in your pocket?
Good grief !
Where do they find these “ journalists “ ?
Liz Plank
Just NO.
Kinda like certain tactics used to get minorities to buy malt liquor and menthol cigarettes?
The only ‘tactic’ that I know of that causes men (and women) to buy guns are Soros prosecutors and judges.
Remington didn’t settle anything - their insurance company settled which is a travesty.
There are quite a few outright lies in this article. Consider these facts:
Remington has not been “held accountable”. Remington ceased to exist as an organization long before this. This was four insurance companies setteling a lawsuit, without any input from Remington.
What the families argued and what is reality is not the same.
The idea that manufacturers should be held liable when their products are used in crime is not mainstream. It is insane.
There has never been any proven link between Lanza and Remington or Remington’s advertising. The idea that an ad promoting a rifle as masculine promotes the murder of innocent children is laughable.
Sounds like the old “priapic theory of gun ownership” rearing its head again. The problem is, many women are now buying guns, too.
The whole priapic thing only truly applies to guys driving lifted 4x4 trucks.
😆
Good grief !
Where do they find these “ journalists “ ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good question. :)
This is actually an opinion piece. Still....
See my tagline.
And yet the rifle was purchased by a woman and then stolen by her perp son after he killed her. So what does killing your mom and stealing her rifle have to do with marketing?
So, why exactly would anyone blame Bushmaster for the school shooting, based on that advertising? The person who bought the Bushmaster rifle was a woman. Guess playing the "man card" didn't get the company much bang for their advertising buck...
To be more precise, the settlement was (from what I read) for the total limits of Remington’s insurance. I am guessing that once the plaintiffs indicated they would accept that amount, Remington took the position that its insurers should give up their total limits or it would be “bad faith”, in which case the insurers could be legally on the hook for an eventual court award against Remington that far exceeded the policy limits. Pretty standard tactic in a case where a jury could make a truly massive award. So Remington did appear to have a valid defense based on the federal statute but the law be damned you know the lower courts were going to screw them and the insurers would not want to take on that risk even if an appellate court might someday reverse it. Just a guess.
Wouldn’t Remington have to sign off on the settlement?
Winning an argument with stupid is a waste of time. Stupid is to the bone, beauty is skin deep. The gun, a knife, and a rock are inanimate objects add azzholes or Alec Baldwin then things go bad. It’s why I carry.
How could the insurers end up liable in excess of the policy size?
or Vote Democrat
Joe Biden “if you Can’t .... You ain’t .....Enough”
MSN.com - I’m going to go out on a limb here and NOT read any of the article, and assume that it has something to do with penis envy.
Standard stupid insults from the standard stupid people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.