A law professor, Heidi Feldman, points out that >With bankruptcy, Remington means to halt the Sandy Hook litigation from continuing in Connecticut state court.Notable timing, it comes after a series of decisions by the trial judge refusing to let Remington dodge discovery.
No harm done here. That case was stupid on all counts and just an excuse to try to dredge up some bad PR during investigation. The mom -- not the shooter -- bought the guns, so the advertising aspect is dumb in that regard let alone that the reputation of the weapon isn't set by Remington in any significant way. Next, Remington sells to dealers. If anyone was "selling" someone on a Remington, it was the gun dealer (i…
Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
311–320 of 346 posts
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those of us who grew up around guns, your abject horror at an object is as puzzling as someone being terrified of knives or slingshots. Would be nice if cops were all good and could teleport to your location in time of need. Drive an hour outside your city of choice and that ain't gonna happen. Just sharing my own experience, cheers.
Indeed! Though even in non-rural environments their response times are too low to generally be of assistance in life-threatening violent altercations; and that response time is typically lower in predominantly african american neighbourhoods. It's kind of a mark of white privilege to believe that the police will arrive in time to protect you, and that when they arrive they won't harm you. Even for de-escalating domes…
This is a gross overstated political narrative.
A) Most police response times are well after most conflicts.
B) Poor and targeted neighborhoods often have better response times because of the larger constant police presence.
C) Socioeconomic signals predict treatment better than the color of your skin.
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fun of an affected machismo and showing up your friends at the target range notwithstanding, there is such a thing as overkill, and there comes a point where it is economically silly to address varmint problems with higher-power, longer-range cartridges. A cartridge that will humanely drop an elk at 300 meters will, without question, ruin a coyote's day just as thoroughly. But why spend $2-$3 per shot when $0.50-…
So there is a significant market segment of people who buy an AR-15 or a similar intermediate caliber rifle for genuine animal defense purposes, because they aren't interested in a more expensive hunting rifle for actual hunting use? Or coyote and bears are a convenient excuse for a gun that is very suitable to kill people?
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know much about firearms based on your response. An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range and is very accurate - that's why my buddy had one. It also doesn't have the spread of a shotgun, which is important if you need to shoot a coyote that's too close to your chickens -- you don't want to fire a round of buckshot and take out a bunch of your chickens in the proc…
I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.
It's unfairly targeted and irrational. Pistols kill more in Chicago on any given weekend then die from a mass shooting annually. You can get a pistol with 17 rounds and fit that in your pocket. It's targeted because it looks scary. Gun enthusiasts have been purchasing and owning 'assault rifles' since they were invented. The ban was temporary and sunset from the beginning because of the outrage of the alternative ind…
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fun of an affected machismo and showing up your friends at the target range notwithstanding, there is such a thing as overkill, and there comes a point where it is economically silly to address varmint problems with higher-power, longer-range cartridges. A cartridge that will humanely drop an elk at 300 meters will, without question, ruin a coyote's day just as thoroughly. But why spend $2-$3 per shot when $0.50-…
So there is a significant market segment of people who buy an AR-15 or a similar intermediate caliber rifle for genuine animal defense purposes, because they aren't interested in a more expensive hunting rifle for actual hunting use? Or coyote and bears are a convenient excuse for a gun that is very suitable to kill people?
I'll address the latter first. The wildlife that tends to be classified as varmints, prairie dogs, rabbits, possums, raccoons, coyotes, wild hogs etc, all tend to have less body mass than humans. Any intermediate cartridge is sufficient. Any common handgun cartridge would probably also be sufficient, though there are at least two problems with the that: 1. A handgun cartridge may not have enough power to quickly drop larger varmints like coyotes or hogs. 2. And even out of something like a pistol-caliber carbine (think an AR or similar compact rifle chambered for pistol rounds) handgun rounds tend to be limited in their practical effective range compared intermediate cartridges. This forces one to get closer to the varmint in question to take the shot. For smaller varmints, like prairie dogs or rabbits, this means that they bolt away and you won't be able to take the shot. For larger varmints, like raccoons, coyotes, or hogs, this means that the critter might decide it's sick of your shit and attack. You might not think it, given the relative size between raccoons and humans, but raccoons can punch well above their weight and absolutely can cause significant injuries to a human.
All of the critters above tend to top-out at body masses less than a human. Compare bears, which can equal the body mass of a human as juveniles, and tend to top out at body masses well in excess thereof. If you shot a bear with an intermediate cartridge and didn't have the luck to have your first shot be a lethal one, you have now wounded, and angered, the bear. You thought raccoons or hogs were dangerous when pissed off.
Now for motivation -- that the real reason to own an AR-pattern rifle is to have something very suitable for killing people. Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but just about any common handgun cartridge bigger than .32 ACP is very suitable for killing people, this is not something unique or special about an AR-15. But I won't pretend that it isn't quite capable of such -- it absolutely is. Were I to find myself in a home defense situation, I would reach for an AR over a handgun or shotgun -- more power than the former, and more precise than the latter. I'm not going to pretend that such is any more likely a scenario than a global plague disrupting food supply chains. But, I suppose keeping a few weeks of water, food and batteries on hand also makes me an irrational weirdo.
Finally, you may have heard the phrase, "all interesting behavior is overdetermined". With regards to the large market for AR-pattern rifles, this means that for any one AR owner, they will have one or more of a myriad of reasons to own an AR -- including as a raised middle finger to those who would wring their hands about the AR's unique suitability for murder and that its ownership should be banned or restricted. For good or for ill, open defiance of overbearing busybodies has been a part of the American psyche for a long time.
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#317Am sure this will be downvoted but just commenting that I find discussion in these threads fascinating, terrifying, fundamentally foreign. Having lived in large cities all my life I cannot conceive of owning a gun, or of other nearby city dwellers owning guns, or even being allowed to in a non law enforcement capacity. There are apartments in NYC with working fireplaces- seems almost equally insane to me, though gun…
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?
You can get a Harley for $8k?
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
No harm done here. That case was stupid on all counts and just an excuse to try to dredge up some bad PR during investigation. The mom -- not the shooter -- bought the guns, so the advertising aspect is dumb in that regard let alone that the reputation of the weapon isn't set by Remington in any significant way. Next, Remington sells to dealers. If anyone was "selling" someone on a Remington, it was the gun dealer (i…
Are there any other industries/ cases where the manufacturer is liable for damage due to misuse by the consumer? It seems something like this is weak to begin with.
Working as intended, but still sued was quite the bizarre position to be supported by a judge.
Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
This grossly (and incorrectly) oversimplifies an enormous industry with a number of different approaches. Some PE firms absolutely strip the assets out of businesses and maximize their short term profits, while others buy and hold for the long term and others add value to companies they buy then sell them or take them public. I hate the whole "PE is evil" attitude from people who don't understand it. Often there are…
> If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.). I mean, a lot of the tech industry really is just focused on extracting value from other people's labour, or replacing them altogether.