Gun ads are just guns ads, guns are just guns, it’s the shooter who decides how to use them. Remington is not at fault for the actions of Adam Lanza. His own mother isn’t at fault for what her kid did. Lanza was freak, he could have gone to a gas station, buy gasoline, and set that school on fire. He could have learned to make bombs with common household products. He could have used a knife. No gun control in the world stops a mass shooter, only a good guy with a gun can do that, and at Sandy Hook, good guys were disarmed and vulnerable.
Bev Fitchet
October 17, 2022
Gun Control Groups: Gun Ads Kill People
[As pointed out in the article the murderer did not buy the gun used at Sandy Hook after being inspired by a gun ad. How do we know this for certain? Because he didn’t buy any guns. He murdered his own mother and stole her gun. So, even if we ignore the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, how is it the plaintiffs can get any traction with this line of attack on our rights?
I’m reminded of the Brady Act passage. Jim Brady (President Reagan and a SS agent) were all shot by John Hinckley. The anti-gun groups pushed the Brady Act (“instant” background checks) through based on this high profile crime. Never mind that Hinckley would have passed a background when he purchased his gun. They used deception to create a law which has zero benefit to society.
The facts do not matter to these people. Lies and deception have been an integral part of their culture since, at least, the mid 1980s. They are self-identifying as evil.
Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]
It’s been said that politics is downstream from culture. Well and good. Culture is downstream from religion. And communism is the religion of domination and destruction. Driven by emotion.
It cannot build or create. It can only destroy. As you say Joe, evil.
Luckily for us the upside reaction is more range time!
Does not the Lord work in wonderous and mysterious ways?
The reasoning in the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit was that Remington’s/Bushmaster’s ads purported their rifles as suitable for civilians to take offensive actions against their perceived enemies, that such messaging is unethical and shouldn’t be covered by the PLCAA, and that Lanza saw these ads and asked his mother for that model rifle.
The reasoning breaks down in that — supposing the families’ allegations are correct and Lanza was swayed by advertising — if Remington/Bushmaster did not advertise their rifles, or if they advertised differently than they did, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that some other company’s ads would have swayed him. (Based on various gun magazine ads I’ve seen, pretty much all AR-15 manufacturers use similar messaging: our rifles are accurate and dependable … and will turn you into a paramilitary bad-@$$ capable of yeeting anyone who needs yeeting.)
It breaks down again (and should have ended the lawsuit) in that, IIRC, nobody can definitively prove that Lanza ever saw a Remington/Bushmaster ad or that it swayed his decision. For all we know, he asked his mother for an AR-15 — any AR-15 — and she went and bought the one the gun store guys recommended. Reportedly, she was the “gun enthusiast” in the family; it’s reasonable to question whether or not she chose that rifle, not her son. Neither of them are around to tell us any different, after all.
In any event, the lawsuit succeeded because some bean-counters at Remington decided that defending the lawsuit, even if ultimately successful, would be more expensive than offering a settlement. Principles be damned. Time will tell if that decision ends up being less expensive in the long term, as gun companies — Remington included — will be pressured to settle on other lawsuits.
Like it or not, now that such lawsuits have passed their proof-of-concept test, we can expect to see many, many more of them in the future.
yeah, in the end dragging this lawsuit for whales like Remington is just losing more money. Rather admit it and move on. Did it make gun ads dissapear? Nope. Will there be more lawsuits like this in the future? Probably.