This seems really bizarre to me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/15/remington-sandy-hook-settlement/

Remington is sued by families of Sandy Hook and settles for 73m, now bankrupt. They said bushmaster ads market to unstable young adults.

This seems insane.

Am I missing something that makes this make sense?

and that gun manufacturers who violate state consumer protection laws can and should be held accountable,”

Don't know what they did that violates this.. And how would you prove that?

If the insurance companies thought they had a case they would have taken it to court. No insurance company has ever paid out something they didn't have to in the history of mankind.

Seems like Remington just took responsibility for marketing an item as "fun" and "manly" when they knew damn well safety and responsibility should of been the point of all their marketing.

Its about fucking time one of these weapon manufacturers pays for all of the slaughter theyve caused.

The swarms of people defending murder weapons on top of the piles of childrens corpses is the most pathetic thing ive seen in america to date which is saying a lot, and proves why nobody deserves guns at all.

No one "deserves" anything. That's a poor argument.

Want a real entity to blame? The mental healthcare system in america. Because people NEED mental help.

What precedent is set when clearly, undeniably frivolous lawsuits can be brought on the basis of prejudice and emotional bias alone, and extort a $73 million settlement despite no malfeasance- even after congress passed a law explicitly trying to stop these exact kinds of frivolous liability-by-osmosis lawsuits in this specific case? Its basically saying that the civil law system is so totally bonkers that anyone can litigate anything for any reason as long as the support among potential jurors exists.

Its hard to overstate just how incredibly bonkers this case was. Trying to create liability for a murder because the defendant.... used masculine themes in advertising? On the argument it would appeal to a murderer who didn't even buy the weapon or view that advertising. The entire concept of proximate causation was thrown out the window. It became the equivalent of "I don't like your face, therefore you caused 9/11". About as much causation.

The insurance companies lawyers chose to settle and they understand the nuances of the case to a greater degree than you.

That makes it better/right?

"Understanding" that a system is broken doesn't change the fact its broken.