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.
😆
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.
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.
It’s cruel to imply someone doesn’t think like a liberal. Sound like a compliment.
The problem with the Sandy Hook shooting was the rifle used was owned by the shooter’s mother. If I recall correctly he killed her before heading to the school. How does Remington’s advertising to men have anything to do with the woman’s purchase.
I have been around firearms since the age of six. The firearms I had then were all made by Mattel.A few years later, I was part of the airbase’s Junior NRA group, handling target rifles, and semi-automatic pistols.
A few years latet, I was stepping off the plane at U-Tapao RTNAF, Thailand. For a few month’s rotational period, I was assigned an M-16 and a S&W Model 15. I served 3 years at that base.
All of this time, I remember NO such thing as a television ad for a firearm!
Being exposed to various firearms, for various purposes, I have my own choices, and reasons, separate from others.
I know my choices for black powder-flint and ball; for military surplus firearms; and for any purpose.
By this reasoning, BLM is responsible for the deaths of 6 people at a Christmas parade in Wisconsin. Just say’in.
So people, men and women, don’t actually have free will to decide their own actions and are victims of Madison Avenue style advertising as thoughtless automatons. Gotcha.