Here’s one thing I’m doing to make sure your child is safe
My son was killed at Sandy Hook by an AR-15
Whenever I heard about a mass shooting like those in Columbine or Aurora, I used to wonder how those families survived. But never once did I do anything about it.
I had a family, a career; I was busy. When I put my boys to bed each night, I would tell them, “You are loved, you are safe.” I thought about keeping my kids safe as much as any mom. Safe from crossing the street, safe from bullies. I didn’t think I had to worry about keeping my kids safe from military assault weapons.
But on Dec. 14, 2012, my son, Ben, was killed in his school classroom by someone with a military weapon.
This week marks seven years since Ben was murdered at Sandy Hook School, since his brother hid in a gym closet to avoid a barrage of gunfire from that AR-15 — and seven years since my husband and I learned, in the most unimaginably cruel way, that someone has to do something.
This month marks five years since we and several other families filed a lawsuit against against Remington, Remington, the the manufacturer, manufacturer, marketer and seller of the Bushmaster AR-15, the weapon that our shooter chose to use. His choice was neither accident nor coincidence; it was the result of Remington’s deliberate and deadly decision to aggressively push a weapon of war into civilian hands.
The AR-15 is a killing machine, a military weapon designed to inflict mass destruction. It can unleash 30 rounds in under 10 seconds and penetrate body armor. It has exceptional muzzle velocity, making each hit lethal, and its large-capacity magazines allow for rapid-fire, prolonged assaults. It was built for warfare and has been the military’s weapon of choice for 50 years because of its efficiency in killing large amounts of people. When entrusted to the military and law enforcement officers, the AR-15 requires more than 100 hours of training and remains locked in a secure weapons room on military bases with strict protocols for signing out the weapon.
Nonetheless, Remington made a decision to market to the general public a
product intended only as a military weapon, a deception designed to boost the company’s bottom line. More specifically, it designed its advertising campaigns to target violence-prone, military-obsessed young men, the exact profile of many mass shooters. Remington is no doubt aware that, after every mass shooting, sales of assault rifles skyrocket. The company’s 2013 financial reports show significantly increased sales in the wake of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook. That’s why its ads in consumer gun magazines revolve around military imagery and language like “Forces of opposition, bow down” and “Consider your man card reissued.”
The company’s deceptive marketing is the reason that the Sandy Hook shooter, like nearly all mass killers, selected the Bushmaster AR-15 to carry out the murder of 20 first graders and six school employees. It is also the reason Remington can and should be held accountable for its actions.
Gun companies like to claim that they have immunity from any and all liability related to the use of one of their guns in the commissioning of a crime. But the law that claim relies on, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, includes six specific circumstances in which gun companies can be held liable. One of those, known as the predicate exception, holds that any gun sales must conform with state law in order for the immunity to apply.
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act prohibits the deceptive marketing of consumer products. We believe marketing a military weapon as safe for civilian use is exactly such a deception and have asked only that a jury be allowed to consider that. The Connecticut Supreme Court has given us that opportunity and, last month, the United States Supreme Court denied Remington’s request to overturn that decision. After five years of Remington’s attempts to kill the case, our case is finally returning to court this week and firmly headed to trial.
Whether we win or lose, I know that my beautiful Ben is never coming home. But if a Connecticut jury holds Remington responsible for prioritizing its profits over our safety, it lessens the risk that your first grader will die in school or in a movie theater or in a church or anywhere else. Let that be what we did after Sandy Hook.