Now: There are, apparently a lot of misconceptions surrounding the case of Sandy Hook families suing Remington Arms, and the settlement that has ended that suit. Excerpt:
A lot of us are still processing the whole thing regarding the settlement between Remington’s insurance company and the families of those killed in Sandy Hook. It’s done and in the books, of course, but the ramifications will continue for long afterward.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people looking at the settlement and thinking it means stuff it doesn’t, writing very misleading and outright wrong opinion pieces based on nonsense that people will accept as absolute fact.
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 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. But some states are now using consumer protection as a way to hold gunmakers’ feet to the fire. New York passed a law last summer that classified irresponsible marketing of firearms as a “nuisance,” which could allow firearm corporate entities to be sued, and New Jersey could be the next state to follow suit.
Except it wasn’t Remington who made the settlement. It was the insurance company itself, meaning Remington hasn’t said they did anything wrong.
Which is good, because they didn’t.
See, the insurance company opted to settle because the optics of carrying on a legal battle with the families of murder victims was less than spectacular. They have other customers and clients outside of the gun industry, and likely figured they’d lose more in the long run by fighting.
But Remington wasn’t part of the decision process. No one in the firearm industry was, so it’s kind of ridiculous to claim a gun maker was held accountable when nothing of the sort actually happened.
Here’s where author Tom Knighton misses the point:
What I do know, though, is that these supposed journalists should do a whole lot more research before opening their trap.
Here’s the problem: With this statement, Mr. Knighton implies that the “journalists” in question, had they done a little more research, would have reported the matter honestly. That’s not the case. These people, where guns and gun laws are concerned, don’t even had a nodding acquaintance with honesty. They don’t know the facts of the case, they don’t know what the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act says or means, and they don’t know anything about guns or how they function. What’s more, they don’t care. It’s all about the Narrative. You could gunsplain these things to them until you’re blue in the face, and they wouldn’t change a word in their reporting.
The rest of the article, of course, does a good job of explaining what really happened in this settlement, and it’s not what a lot of us thought it was. It’s a pretty good piece of preaching to the choir, and might well give many of us ammunition (hah) for discussions of this issue with family and friends.