Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[playtime]

CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
Remember Sandyhook? Happened in CT.
Why?
CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.

because adam lanza's mother was a survivalist nutter, who even despite adam's increasingly nutter behavior, who literally IGNORED the shrinks who said he was a nutter went with him on several occasions to firing ranges & let him know where the key was to the gun safe.

 

[Abatis]

Oh, please, we've had 14 pages of gun fetishists screaming like stuck pigs, because the gun industry might actually clean up their act.

No, we have had 14 pages of rational, fact based corrections of you and your ilk's continuous hysterical exaggerations and misrepresentations of what the settlement was and what it means going forward legally.

This isn't some *****-ass high school debate, buddy.

It's excruciatingly worse, because there's nobody keeping score and maintaining decorum. You are your ilk are free to say the most ridiculous things and promote profoundly incorrect legal theories tethered to no other principle but your corrupt, leftist, anti-constitutional political agenda.

uh, you are the one who put up a bunch of pictures of people of color... not me.

I did not post any pictures of people because of their race . . .

I posted a collage of portraits/mug shots of those believed responsible for every 2021 mass shooting for which the identity of the perp/suspect is known.

Do you have any real challenge to what I posed on a factual basis or is it just emotional overreaction?

What was your intent, what were you trying to convey posting "703 in 2021" in response to 2aguy asking, "Total killed by mass public shooters?"???

Not only is your answer egregiously, dishonestly wrong, you posted it to make a particular statement in support of your, 'get rid of guns, that'll cure everything' agenda . . .

When regular people hear the term "mass shooting" a mental image of what that is and who is doing it comes to mind. That image is closer to what Mother Jones presents, a random, lone-wolf (usually white guy) spree shooting event, not associated with criminal acts like stash house rip-squads or good ol' drive-bys . . .

So the two part question is, why are you lying about how many people are killed in "mass shootings"?

Second, are you arguing that the same policy remedies to address lone 35 y.o. white incel random spree "mass shooters" will also address 15 -24 y.o. gang-banger's shooting each other over drug corners?

Final questions, why do you feel the need to be such a disingenuous shit-talker? Why do you feel he need to call me a racist just because you can't defend your stupid anti-gun position from simple logical and legal challenge?

.

 

[Abatis]

& yet remington lost.

You are either talking out of your ass from complete ignorance or you are lying . . .

Which is it?

"dismiss the pending . . . action, with prejudice, against the Remington defendants."

Please, oh wise one, explain to me how has Remington "lost"?

.

 

[JoeB131]

No, 14 pages of rational, fact based corrections of you and your ilk's continuous hysterical exaggerations and misrepresentations of what the settlement was and what it means going forward legally.

Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?

It's excruciatingly worse, because there's nobody keeping score and maintaining decorum. You are your ilk are free to say the most ridiculous things and promote profoundly incorrect legal theories tethered to no other principle but your corrupt, leftist, anti-constitutional political agenda.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Most people aren't comfortable with Adam Lanza running around with an assault rifle because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.

What was your intent, what were you trying to convey posting "703 in 2021" in response to @2aguy asking, "Total killed by mass public shooters?"???

That we have too many assholes with guns shooting up more than one person.

When regular people hear the term "mass shooting" a mental image of what that is and who is doing it comes to mind. That image is closer to what Mother Jones presents, a random, lone-wolf (usually white guy) spree shooting events not associated with criminal acts like stash house rip-squads or good ol' drive-bys . . .

And what is your point? We've already established that this racist society doesn't care about people of color.

They only get upset when it's some little white kids getting shot up. That's when the mutants go to battle stations, living in fear that the majority of us who don't feel a need to own a gun might finally get sick of your fetish.

 

[JoeB131]

Please, oh wise one, explain to me how has Remington "lost"?

Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.

 

[2aguy]

Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?



The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Most people aren't comfortable with Adam Lanza running around with an assault rifle because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.




That we have too many assholes with guns shooting up more than one person.



And what is your point? We've already established that this racist society doesn't care about people of color.

They only get upset when it's some little white kids getting shot up. That's when the mutants go to battle stations, living in fear that the majority of us who don't feel a need to own a gun might finally get sick of your fetish.

No....the democrat party, the party whose judges and prosecutors keep releasing violent, repeat gun offenders back into black communities over and over again, do not care about people of color....as they do their best to resegregate society and try to keep Asians from getting into the best schools in the country.....

 

[JoeB131]

No....the democrat party, the party whose judges and prosecutors k

we lock up 2 million people in this country. We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and 100 million with police records.

We are not going to fix this problem by locking people up.

 

[playtime]

You are either talking out of your ass from complete ignorance or you are lying . . .

Which is it?


View attachment 608108

View attachment 608109

"dismiss the pending . . . action, with prejudice, against the Remington defendants."

Please, oh wise one, explain to me how has Remington "lost"?

.

are they paying out cash? or should i say their insurers?

The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers.


"This victory should serve as a wake up call, not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up," he added. "For the insurance and banking industries, it's time to recognise the financial cost of underwriting companies that elevate profit by escalating risk."

Last July, Remington - the oldest gun-maker in the US - offered $33 million to (£24m) to the families, falling far short of the $225m they'd sought in court. They rejected the offer and said they had collected enough evidence to prove misconduct from Remington.

This settlement may encourage state governments and gun-control advocates who want to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence to press on - offering them hope that existing legal protections won't always be an insurmountable obstacle.
Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington

& like i said - a precedent has been established.

now go hug yer guns.

 

[playtime]

Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.

they maxed out their insurers....

 

[M14 Shooter]

false.

False?
You don't know the only time the TX abortion law allows for a lawsuit is if there is an illegal abortion procedure?
How can this be?

 

[M14 Shooter]

federal law - which supersedes state laws
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
states that abortion is legal until viability.

No federal law states this.
So, the fact remains:
In CA, someone has to violate the law w/ respect to firearms before there can be a lawsuit.
If no one violates the law, there can be no lawsuit.
Just like in TX.

 

[M14 Shooter]

& yet remington lost.

Remington didn't lose anyting - there was no judgement against them.
And they didn't pay anything - the insurance companies did.
And there was no judgement or admission of fault.
You can't seem to get over that factoid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

& like i said - a precedent has been established.

Your is a statement of ignorance.
Precedent comes for rulings of a court.
There was no judicial ruling here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

because adam lanza's mother was a survivalist nutter, who even despite adam's increasingly nutter behavior, who literally IGNORED the shrinks who said he was a nutter went with him on several occasions to firing ranges & let him know where the key was to the gun safe.

And thus, you admit:
-CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
-CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.

This means your claim CT has "they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS." is vapid nonsense.
Well done.

 

[Abatis]

Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?

What do I have to be worried about?

I have the truth and the law on my side.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Why do you demand the government violate it then?

Most people aren't comfortable with Adam Lanza running around with an assault rifle because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.

This is exactly the brain breakage I spoke of before.

You are unhinged and have abandoned composure and shunned all reason.

That we have too many assholes with guns shooting up more than one person.

I agree but your remedy of forced citizen disarmament is unworkable because it is not legally possible. What government is allowed to do and is granted wide powers to do and what will work, you reject, saying we can't fix this problem by locking people up.

And what is your point? We've already established that this racist society doesn't care about people of color.

Especially true in the Democrat run jurisdictions where POC's, especially young men, are being killed at rates 20X that of whites.

Even worse, it is in these jurisdictions that Democrats have often enjoyed unchallenged power for decades that the most brutal and discriminatory policing occurs.

They only get upset when it's some little white kids getting shot up.

Or a pretty white blonde girl goes missing . . .

That's when the mutants go to battle stations, living in fear that the majority of us who don't feel a need to own a gun might finally get sick of your fetish.

Gun control is dead. No amount of histrionics and hand-waving freakoutery will alter that political and legal reality.

2022 will be the year the gun control movement is crushed. First smash will be by SCOTUS in June which will herald a tidal wave of challenges in the Circuits and then waves of invalidations, especially in the 9th, 3rd and the 4th Circuits, of earlier decisions that sustained various "assault weapon" bans and Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) Bans. That will just be the beginning; the restrictive purchase permitting and the licensing of simple ownership in states like NJ, NY, CA and MD will also be invalidated.

You really have no clue what is coming do you?

.

 

[Abatis]

Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.

You have to know that makes no sense either as a logical or legal statement . . .

What if some wacko teenager steals a big delivery box truck and smashes it into a school bus, killing himself and 26 kids and teachers.

The trucking company goes into bankruptcy and is liquidated.

The various insurers of the now defunct company are still on the hook for the wreck and the victim's families decide to sue, saying the company made a dangerous product, not suitable for the roads and marketed their large, powerful trucks which regular drivers, let alone teenagers, have no reason to drive such a vehicle.

The plaintiffs find a sympathetic court that allows the novel, inventive, crazy suit to proceed. The insurance companies, companies who never built, sold or drove a truck and have no interest in defending trucking or trucks, are responsible to settle the claims, as a matter of law the suit must be resolved in some manner . . .

The insurance companies decide to settle at the limits of the policies in force when the wreck happened in an agreement that compensates the families of the victims and then the lawsuit with all of its claims, is withdrawn, closed with prejudice and can never be revisited.

No admission of responsibility was ever made, no court ever found any direct legal culpability for the truck maker, buyer, or trucking company, ending the lawsuit was just a business decision by the insurance companies to release themselves from a possibility of limitless, open-ended monetary exposure.

In other words, nobody was ever held or ever said, my fault; the insurance companies just cried uncle.

Nobody lost, the insurance carriers just paid the limits of the policies in force.

 

[Abatis]

are they paying out cash? or should i say their insurers?

Yes, the various insurance carriers are simply paying up to the limits of the polices in force on the date the Sandy Hook Shooting happened.

The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers.

No, $73 million is the remainder of policy funds, after $2.5 million was paid previously to another entity not part of the Sota action and with $500,000 being held to pay another claim. The total amount of the limits of all policies in force was $76 million.

This settlement may encourage state governments and gun-control advocates who want to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence to press on - offering them hope that existing legal protections won't always be an insurmountable obstacle.
Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington

& like i said - a precedent has been established.

The only thing that "has been established" is that you do not know what "precedent" means.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you demand the government violate it then?

Because I am tired of sharing my streets with gun toting maniacs...

This is exactly the brain breakage I spoke of before.

You are unhinged and have abandoned composure and shunned all reason.

yes, I tend to lose composure when I see small children being wheeled out in body bags because some dickless wonder like you needs to compensate for his "shortcomings".

I agree but your remedy of forced citizen disarmament is unworkable because it is not legally possible. What government is allowed to do and is granted wide powers to do and what will work, you reject, saying we can't fix this problem by locking people up.

Except we know gun control works just fine- in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan.

Especially true in the Democrat run jurisdictions where POC's, especially young men, are being killed at rates 20X that of whites.

Even worse, it is in these jurisdictions that Democrats have often enjoyed unchallenged power for decades that the most brutal and discriminatory policing occurs.

You mean- places where people actually live? Hey, I admit, banning guns and putting the criminal gun industry out of business will only solve part of the problem. We also need police reform, we need legal reform, we need treatment programs for addiction and mental illness, and we need poverty relief that is meaningful.

2022 will be the year the gun control movement is crushed. First smash will be by SCOTUS in June which will herald a tidal wave of challenges in the Circuits and then waves of invalidations, especially in the 9th, 3rd and the 4th Circuits, of earlier decisions that sustained various "assault weapon" bans and Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) Bans. That will just be the beginning; the restrictive purchase permitting and the licensing of simple ownership in states like NJ, NY, CA and MD will also be invalidated.

And won't do much good if the other gun companies are sued out of existence. There might be a point where the government will have to take them over just to keep a supply of weapons for the military and law enforcement.

Nobody lost, the insurance carriers just paid the limits of the policies in force.

Uh, sorry, guy, when an insurance company pays the max, and turns over all the documents of the now defunct company, the company LOST. Lost big time.

Those carriers are going to go back to the other gun makers and jack up their policies to the roof. They'll be spending more on insurance than they will on metal and manufacturing.

 

[2aguy]

we lock up 2 million people in this country. We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and 100 million with police records.

We are not going to fix this problem by locking people up.

We aren't fixing this problem by releasing the actual criminals who keep shooting people...you idiot....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by slave owning rapists, that keep releasing these violent criminals back into black neighborhoods....

 

[JoeB131]

We aren't fixing this problem by releasing the actual criminals who keep shooting people...you idiot....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by slave owning rapists, that keep releasing these violent criminals back into black neighborhoods....

We lock up 2 million people. We lock up so many people we have to create a whole Parole Industry to keep track of the ones we don't have cells for.

If guns and prisons brought us security, we'd have the safest streets in teh world, not the most deadly.