Remington Arms Insurers Offers $33M Settlement To Sandy Hook Families

Nov 17, 2019
12,188
7,324
136


"Joshua Koskoff, an attorney for the families, said the settlements were offered by two of Remington's insurers.

“Ironshore and James River ... deserve credit for now realizing that promoting the use of AR-15s as weapons of war to civilians is indefensible. Insuring this kind of conduct is an unprofitable and untenable business model,” Koskoff said in a statement.

Remington's lawyers have denied the lawsuit's allegations.

Remington, based in Madison, North Carolina filed for bankruptcy last year for the second time in two years. Its assets were later sold off to several companies."


I'm sure somewhere in the language is something about not admitting fault, but who knows? Could this be a beginning?
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
I predict nearly none of the families take this settlement.
This is a wealthy area they likely don’t need the couple hundred K this would net them and it is likely more of an insult to them.
I predict this goes to trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
So does that mean I can sue the Honda manufacturer when one hits me?
Cuz they made a car that goes faster than 55 miles per hour and marketed it as "fun"?
 
Nov 17, 2019
12,188
7,324
136
So does that mean I can sue the Honda manufacturer when one hits me?
Cuz they made a car that goes faster than 55 miles per hour and marketed it as "fun"?
No. However if Ferrari or McClaren sold you a Formula One to drive on the streets, you might have a case.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
No. However if Ferrari or McClaren sold you a Formula One to drive on the streets, you might have a case.
A formula one car isn't street legal though.

There are plenty of cars that are essentially road-legal, track-prepped, whether that's for a road course or a drag strip (even moreso for motorcycles).

Why else would Dodge sell an 800hp challenger, or Ford a Mustang GT500, or Chevy a Camaro ZL1, and so on?

Paul Walker's family/estate(?) did try and sue Porsche over the Carrera GT. IIRC they settled out of court.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,022
8,298
136
A formula one car isn't street legal though.

There are plenty of cars that are essentially road-legal, track-prepped, whether that's for a road course or a drag strip (even moreso for motorcycles).

Why else would Dodge sell an 800hp challenger, or Ford a Mustang GT500, or Chevy a Camaro ZL1, and so on?

Paul Walker's family/estate(?) did try and sue Porsche over the Carrera GT. IIRC they settled out of court.
Honestly, maybe it's time people start suing auto companies for selling oversized and overpowered vehicles that are effectively dangerous to all other street users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and K1052
Nov 17, 2019
12,188
7,324
136
I've long argued that any vehicle capable (factory or modified) of over 120MPH should not be able to get license plates for street use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
You do know that's basically every automobile right?

Yeah I’m not an engineer but to my understanding the sweet spot for efficiency in gas engines is around 60% of what their max power/speed is. So if a car is designed to have max fuel efficiency at 60mph it likely can do a bit over 100mph.
Sort of hard to get around this if you are not willing to have your engine run at its max capacity on the highway which will reduce engine life.
There could be a technicals solution like a chip inside the car to let’s say prevent more than 90mph but again I don’t think this is a big enough problem for a solution like that.

Also as Americans you are free to sue any person or business you choose. You are also accountable if you bring frivolous fact devoid suits. Feel free to sue any automaker for making an unsafe product.
Yes our legal system can be irritating because it lacks firm yes or no rules but that is also what makes it wonderful.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
There could be a technicals solution like a chip inside the car to let’s say prevent more than 90mph but again I don’t think this is a big enough problem for a solution like that.
That's literally a thing, and has been for decades. It's call a governor. It's standard on all automobiles, and usually locks them to a specific speed, generally aligned with the recommended tires for that automobile. For instance, for my Camaro, it's 155mph.

Yeah I’m not an engineer but to my understanding the sweet spot for efficiency in gas engines is around 60% of what their max power/speed is. So if a car is designed to have max fuel efficiency at 60mph it likely can do a bit over 100mph.
That may be the case, I don't know. I do know that your average 4 cylinder western econobox can hit 140mph, as I did so in a Ford Focus in Germany. Cheaper vehicles in some realms may be less capable, but ironically they're also a lot less safer.
 
Nov 17, 2019
12,188
7,324
136
I used to argue for lower, 100 or so, but since speed limits have increased in some places, 100 might be necessary to safely pass.

And I mean LONG argued ... far enough back that most cars on the road would no longer be capable of it. Like back in the 70s and 80s.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
That's literally a thing, and has been for decades. It's call a governor. It's standard on all automobiles, and usually locks them to a specific speed, generally aligned with the recommended tires for that automobile. For instance, for my Camaro, it's 155mph.


That may be the case, I don't know. I do know that your average 4 cylinder western econobox can hit 140mph, as I did so in a Ford Focus in Germany. Cheaper vehicles in some realms may be less capable, but ironically they're also a lot less safer.

Oh I know this well. Fastest I went in my 76’ Buick with the 350 8 cylinder was a little under 100. Old car felt powerful but it had nothing in the top end of the engine/rpm curve. Car felt far too unsafe at that speed too.
My 90 4 cylinder 1.8(?) hit 125 and felt solid.
Carburetor vs fuel injection right there.
 
Nov 17, 2019
12,188
7,324
136
I see a big brother type future where all motor vehicles are geo-restricted by location. Urban areas limited to something like 55 or 60, but maybe 80 or 90 in open/rural areas. They would also all have remote location and kill switches for theft prevention/recovery.

I hope I'm dead by then, but I think it's a definite likelyhood.

But back on topic, remember that motor vehicles are not intended to kill as their primary purpose.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
Oh I know this well. Fastest I went in my 76’ Buick with the 350 8 cylinder was a little under 100. Old car felt powerful but it had nothing in the top end of the engine/rpm curve. Car felt far too unsafe at that speed too.
My 90 4 cylinder 1.8(?) hit 125 and felt solid.
Carburetor vs fuel injection right there.
And aerodynamics/suspension stability. That '76 buick was just as likely to hit a bump in our completely shit highway system, and go end-over-end for a quarter mile. Aforementioned focus felt like I was driving 60mph at 140.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat
Mar 11, 2004
23,261
5,709
146
So does that mean I can sue the Honda manufacturer when one hits me?
Cuz they made a car that goes faster than 55 miles per hour and marketed it as "fun"?

Not sure why you didn't think that was already possible? Plus, let me know when Honda designs a car for and markets it based on its ability to kill, which is literally what gun manufacturers have done. Likewise, I'm not sure if you genuinely thought you were making a salient point and not instead highlighting how a car, while capable of killing people, is not inherently designed for such purpose, whereas a gun is, but as usual gun nuts can't seem to understand how much their own arguments highlights the problem and expose both the silliness of their argument as well as highlights perfectly what other people argue.

Look, I get that being a dumbshit is your thing, but are you seriously too damn stupid to know that car manufacturers have actually been on the hook for a lot of deaths that happened in/around their cars? When the auto industry was having serious issues with people being killed, much stricter safety guidelines were passed and enforced. Its baffling how out of touch with reality you surrogate penis stroking dumb sonsabitches are. Its kinda exactly why people have been saying its fucked up that gun manufacturers haven't been held more liable when they've designed and marketed them expressly with intent to kill and often kill far more than any rational person would deem necessary.

FYI, there's some growing discussion about what's causing an uptick in car related fatalities (especially when vehicles hit pedestrians) and that it likely lies in the ever growing size and purchase of larger and larger vehicles (namely pickups and SUVs), that makes both the ability to see and the damage done to pedestrians a major part of the problem. Its not a coincidence that the marketing for them is quite similar to how gun manufacturers pushed their shit either. Do not be surprised if there's some effort to reign that shit in. Then again, much like with guns, there's already laws that would help quite a bit but they're so lackadaisically enforced that they don't do much good. I'm pretty goddamn sure that there's a shitload of lifted trucks that aren't legal where they're being driven for instance.

I want to highlight again, you're comparing a car driving legal highway speeds and marketed as fun as equal to guns built for and marketed for killing? Its like you gun-nutters (at this point I have to assume your penis is small enough to fit in the barrel and you're literally using them as masturbation tools) are intentionally trying to go "let me see if I can make the dumbest argument possible!"
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
And aerodynamics/suspension stability. That '76 buick was just as likely to hit a bump in our completely shit highway system, and go end-over-end for a quarter mile. Aforementioned focus felt like I was driving 60mph at 140.

Agreed plus suspensions and steering and breaking greatly improved during the 80s
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,102
14,440
146
That's literally a thing, and has been for decades. It's call a governor. It's standard on all automobiles, and usually locks them to a specific speed, generally aligned with the recommended tires for that automobile. For instance, for my Camaro, it's 155mph.


That may be the case, I don't know. I do know that your average 4 cylinder western econobox can hit 140mph, as I did so in a Ford Focus in Germany. Cheaper vehicles in some realms may be less capable, but ironically they're also a lot less safer.

Our first cars, a Saturn SL2 and an Oldsmobile Intrigue GM had the governors set at just over 100. It's pretty freaky. The engine just drops from 4-5K RPM down to idle.

My Tesla Model 3 LR is governed to 145mph. The Standard Range + is set to 140 and the Performance 3 is set at 162. Of course Tesla can apparently update the software to change that. I can even download an update that reduces my 0-60mph time from 4.2s to 3.7s for $2K.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
Not sure why you didn't think that was already possible? Plus, let me know when Honda designs a car for and markets it based on its ability to kill, which is literally what gun manufacturers have done. Likewise, I'm not sure if you genuinely thought you were making a salient point and not instead highlighting how a car, while capable of killing people, is not inherently designed for such purpose, whereas a gun is, but as usual gun nuts can't seem to understand how much their own arguments highlights the problem and expose both the silliness of their argument as well as highlights perfectly what other people argue.

Look, I get that being a dumbshit is your thing, but are you seriously too damn stupid to know that car manufacturers have actually been on the hook for a lot of deaths that happened in/around their cars? When the auto industry was having serious issues with people being killed, much stricter safety guidelines were passed and enforced. Its baffling how out of touch with reality you surrogate penis stroking dumb sonsabitches are. Its kinda exactly why people have been saying its fucked up that gun manufacturers haven't been held more liable when they've designed and marketed them expressly with intent to kill and often kill far more than any rational person would deem necessary.

FYI, there's some growing discussion about what's causing an uptick in car related fatalities (especially when vehicles hit pedestrians) and that it likely lies in the ever growing size and purchase of larger and larger vehicles (namely pickups and SUVs), that makes both the ability to see and the damage done to pedestrians a major part of the problem. Its not a coincidence that the marketing for them is quite similar to how gun manufacturers pushed their shit either. Do not be surprised if there's some effort to reign that shit in. Then again, much like with guns, there's already laws that would help quite a bit but they're so lackadaisically enforced that they don't do much good. I'm pretty goddamn sure that there's a shitload of lifted trucks that aren't legal where they're being driven for instance.

I want to highlight again, you're comparing a car driving legal highway speeds and marketed as fun as equal to guns built for and marketed for killing? Its like you gun-nutters (at this point I have to assume your penis is small enough to fit in the barrel and you're literally using them as masturbation tools) are intentionally trying to go "let me see if I can make the dumbest argument possible!"

Quoted in case anyone asks about you, later.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Not sure why you didn't think that was already possible? Plus, let me know when Honda designs a car for and markets it based on its ability to kill, which is literally what gun manufacturers have done. Likewise, I'm not sure if you genuinely thought you were making a salient point and not instead highlighting how a car, while capable of killing people, is not inherently designed for such purpose, whereas a gun is, but as usual gun nuts can't seem to understand how much their own arguments highlights the problem and expose both the silliness of their argument as well as highlights perfectly what other people argue.

Look, I get that being a dumbshit is your thing, but are you seriously too damn stupid to know that car manufacturers have actually been on the hook for a lot of deaths that happened in/around their cars? When the auto industry was having serious issues with people being killed, much stricter safety guidelines were passed and enforced. Its baffling how out of touch with reality you surrogate penis stroking dumb sonsabitches are. Its kinda exactly why people have been saying its fucked up that gun manufacturers haven't been held more liable when they've designed and marketed them expressly with intent to kill and often kill far more than any rational person would deem necessary.

FYI, there's some growing discussion about what's causing an uptick in car related fatalities (especially when vehicles hit pedestrians) and that it likely lies in the ever growing size and purchase of larger and larger vehicles (namely pickups and SUVs), that makes both the ability to see and the damage done to pedestrians a major part of the problem. Its not a coincidence that the marketing for them is quite similar to how gun manufacturers pushed their shit either. Do not be surprised if there's some effort to reign that shit in. Then again, much like with guns, there's already laws that would help quite a bit but they're so lackadaisically enforced that they don't do much good. I'm pretty goddamn sure that there's a shitload of lifted trucks that aren't legal where they're being driven for instance.

I want to highlight again, you're comparing a car driving legal highway speeds and marketed as fun as equal to guns built for and marketed for killing? Its like you gun-nutters (at this point I have to assume your penis is small enough to fit in the barrel and you're literally using them as masturbation tools) are intentionally trying to go "let me see if I can make the dumbest argument possible!"
I don't know man. I need a gun powerful enough and with enough rounds to take down people who think that driving their Honda over me is fun.

And do you think it's that is pro gun or just that shortylickens is a guy that doesn't think the government left or right can do anything that makes any sense. I just see him as having a negative attitude about almost everything not all that different than yourself.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,088
30,442
136
I don't know man. I need a gun powerful enough and with enough rounds to take down people who think that driving their Honda over me is fun.

And do you think it's that is pro gun or just that shortylickens is a guy that doesn't think the government left or right can do anything that makes any sense. I just see him as having a negative attitude about almost everything not all that different than yourself.
Make sure you shoot the tires because you could empty a 0.50 into the Honda engine and it will purr like the day it rolled off the assembly line.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Make sure you shoot the tires because you could empty a 0.50 into the Honda engine and it will purr like the day it rolled off the assembly line.
So many Republicans walking around I got a Honda with two engines just in case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
You'd be surprised how many OTC vehicles can't. Just watch Motorweek. Most can't break 110 in a 1/4 mile.
Who said anything about a 1/4 mile? Yeah some shitty 180hp 4cyl will probably take two miles to hit 140, but they likely can.