Go to triangular compass
Left arrow

Sandy Hook Victims to Sue Remington

Veteran News
Veteran News
March 19, 2019
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Copy Link

Stay Up to Date on American Grit

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

We're going to put this disclaimer out there before we go being assholes. We're not trying to be assholes, we're trying to be rational about this whole thing. It's rare that an attorney will give you so much insight into their way of thinking regarding a case, but here we have it, plain as day. This is what is believed by Josh Koskoff, the attorney representing the families in the case against Remington. They (the families) want the marketing you can see that a young man with mental health issues stole a firearm and committed a grievous crime?“These families weren’t the target audience for Remington. The Sandy Hook shooter was their target. He was in the crosshairs of their marketing campaign, and he knew a lot about what that gun could do.”-Josh KoskoffReally? The target of Remington was a mentally unstable young man? Despite the fact that his mother had purchased the weapons for herself and he stole them to commit this atrocity? Look, what happened was horrific, but going after Remington and their marketing strategy when someone stole their guns, instead of purchasing them...Remington didn't market to the young man, Remington marketed to his mother.It's well documented that Adam was troubled and had researched other school shootings as well as suicide methods. Look, we're not psychologists here, but honestly...the idea that any firearms manufacturer would purposely market to people that are this troubled is beyond asinine.If our Ford truck gets stolen and used to run over a mob of people, are we going to start asking why Ford marketed to the guy who stole our truck? They didn't.Stating that young men like Adam Lanza were in the crosshairs of their marketing campaign is beyond juvenile. Think of how much sense that makes. Market weapons to troubled individuals, who then commit atrocious acts of violence, then Remington profits somehow? Remington has had financial woes in the recent past and this attorney thinks the marketing team at America's oldest firearm manufacturer wanted someone like Adam to gain access to their guns? So new laws could be written and they could profit less...seems like a bad marketing strategy to us.Think about the whole idea behind that quote. It assumes that Remington wanted someone like the Sandy Hook shooter to have access to the rifles, because that's such a solid business plan. Maybe they could get away with saying young men were in the crosshairs if it weren't so widely known that the shooter had extreme mental health issues.It's a tragic event without a doubt, but this attempt, even if you get the marketing strategies...what are they going to find? We're pretty certain it'll be nothing of consequence.

send a letter to congress
Adds section
Next Up
No items found.