If Remington Can Get Sued, So Can McDonald’s

I now have every intention of suing McDonald's, Burger King, and my spoon manufacturer for marketing me into obesity.

How dare their marketing professionals make their food look so appealing and delicious that I might want to actually eat it.

Seriously, I'm getting McDonald's for lunch today, and their commercials with near-perfect looking food is one of the reasons why I look the way I do, all 300 pounds of me.

Well, I suppose there is a bit of a lack of self-control there, as well, but nobody needs to know that. After all, it's THEIR fault for making the food look so darned good in those commercials.

Even if it doesn't taste as good as it looks.

Another thing, when I was a kid my mom was hit by a drunk who drove a Chevrolet Caprice Classic. Maybe I should go after Chevy? Or, how about the alcohol companies enticing that alcoholic to keep filling his glass?

Heck, maybe I should sue the bar just for opening their doors …

Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it?

That's how idiotic it is for the Connecticut court to rule that families and victims of the Sandy Hook shooting can now sue Remington over how they marketed the (stolen) firearm used by the nutjob who opened fire on a bunch of innocent kids.

Where am I going with all this?

These are scary times for us, my friends. I hope, I really do, that Remington appeals this. I hope that this case goes to a higher court because this is unprecedented and goes against a previous ruling explicitly preventing this sort of thing from happening.

The Connecticut court said that Remington violated state laws against marketing a military style combat weapon. Here is the ad in question:

Here's the thing though, and I know I'm about to blow some minds here, that's how marketing works.

While I'm a gun nut, first, I'm a digital marketer, second. I don't have a degree in marketing, but I study it for fun because, well, I think it's fun.

If Remington can get sued for marketing something to a group of people, everyone else should be able to get sued for stupid crap, as well. What do I mean?

One of the things about marketing that you may not realize which makes it very effective, is that a desired result is often, though certainly not always, displayed in the advertisement. That's why good looking people are used in commercials a lot of the time.

The person buying the product wants to be like the person (the result) in the advertisement in some way.

You're not buying the product, many times. You may think you are, but you're actually buying the result for the issue that the product solves. When you buy a new holster that promises to be the most comfortable one you own, you're not buying the holster, you're buying the comfort.

(By the way, that link goes to the most comfortable holster you'll ever own.)

Make sense? Here's an example —

This commercial is a classic example of that. Only, in this one, Old Spice realized that women make a majority of the shopping decisions and marketed to them. This ad was hugely successful, and if you watch the commercial, he actually comes right out and says exactly what I'm saying here:

The person viewing that commercial wants the desired outcome of being more like the person using the product.

The woman wants her man to smell like this dude in the commercial. So, what does she do? She buys the Old Spice Bodywash to get the result. She's essentially fixing the issue of her dude smelling like a dudette.

Here's another one —

I have “friends” (I use that term loosely here) who went out and bought Axe Body Spray because they thought it would get them this result:

Of course it didn't get them that result because body spray doesn't fix ugly. But those guys I know bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Axe knew exactly who their customer was.

Here's why that matters —

The guy who buys the AR-15 to some degree has a deep respect for military personnel or has dreamt up themselves into the role of a military operator. If that wasn't the case, the gun manufacturers wouldn't use militaristic pictures and language in their marketing. They're not stupid, and they've done their research.

Guess what? They're not telling us to go kill school children or anyone else. If they were, there'd be even more mass shootings. They're appealing to the person many of us wish we were. 

Every company knows exactly who their customer is, called an avatar, or they wouldn't be in business, or won't be for long.

All companies in all markets do their research.

In this commercial, Reebok marketers came to the conclusion that most men who watch the Superbowl, or football in general, can picture themselves playing the game. So, what'd they do?

What's interesting, is that ad shows office violence but you don't see Reebok getting sued whenever someone beats the snot out of, or kills, a co-worker. But, maybe they should? I mean, Connecticut says so.

Need another example? How about the Most Interesting Man in the World? He's so cool, always surrounded by women, and smokes Cubans. He doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis.

For real, I don't know of many men who haven't had a dream like that to at least some degree.

The marketing pros over at Dos Equis know that men want to be the most interesting guy surrounded by women, etc. So, that guy will forever be immortalized, and it is also one of the most successful ad campaigns ever.

Again, you're buying the result, or an outcome, not the product. The product promises the result you're looking for. For Dos Equis, the desired result is being as cool as the dude in the commercial–even if simulated.

In the case of Remington, the result is nothing more than feeling like a member of a special forces team, even if you're only using your rifle for home-defense which is arguably a type of combat.

Why does all this matter? Because Remington's marketing techniques are no different than any of the above examples, or any of the other marketing done by any other company in the world. I mean, they all learned similar stuff in school.

So, why are they being singled out? Because the gun grabbers are looking for a reason. They need a stepping stone, and this is the best they've got.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

About Joshua Gillem

Josh is a lifelong practitioner and student of the gun. He grew up shooting/hunting with his dad, and was given his first gun, a 12 gauge shotgun, when just a small boy. After high school, he joined the Marines where his love for firearms blossomed as he qualified with an M16A2, an M9, and a 240G. Josh has been writing about firearms and tactics for several years, owns the blog Gunners Den, is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and believes that each individual person has the right to self-defense by any means necessary. Currently residing in gun-friendly NC, he carries a concealed gun on a daily basis, even in his own house.


  1. samcolt on March 15, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    Hey Josh, great article. I don’t think it could be put any better.
    The only thing I can add is this. The only thing I could add to this is an abbreviation I refer to quite often.
    CSI: Can’t Stand Idiots!
    Keep up the good work.

  2. Mark on March 18, 2019 at 7:51 am

    As soon as i heard remmington was being sued for the shootong at sandy hook school i thought why is noone sueing chevy or ford they sell cars that people use to go to bars and get drunk then drive home drunk and kill someone when they caused an accident my son had this happen to him he was driving a small chevy comong home ftom work after wotking a 2nd shift a young girl was driving a hyped up jeep crossed the double yellow line hit him head on never dlowed or brake she was drunk totaly smashed his car it took emergency personel 45 min to get him out he now lives with a limp do to ankle being twisted 180 % the girl got a slap on the wrist my son was in the hospital for a month several operations and was able to sue chevy so why are the parents of sandy hook able to sue remmington they didnt pull the trigger dont get me wrong it was very tragic that this happened i feel for the parents that lost there children and the familys that lodt there loves ones but sueing remmington come on sounds crazy to me

  3. Dan on March 20, 2019 at 8:37 am

    Better yet why not sue the state that allowed manufacturers to build cars, bars, playground equipment etc., etc., or whatever in their respective states then someone was injured or killed whiles using it.

  4. vinnie on March 20, 2019 at 9:04 am

    Years ago there was quite a bit of consternation with regard to actors on TV actually drinking beer and it was thought by the FCC( i think it was the FCC) that this was contributing to under age drinking so this practice was banned (I may be wrong but I think the same thing happened to Cigarette commercials as well as Alcoholic Beverages) If the FCC was the Watchdog in those instances ,why weren’t they mentioned in this case of advertising by Remington ? (If the advertising was really to blame for a mass shooting) I know that no amount of advertising could entice me into purchasing one but the rise of home invasions convinced me pretty quickly ! Why isn’t the news responsible for the sale of Remington as well as other Firearm manufacturers products for people who want the means to protect their Families and Homes? Unless all the news is fake , I would think it presents a really good argument as to why people need to defend themselves with something other than a speed dialer set to 911! So now the news shares some responsibility for convincing the public to arm themselves and since we all can’t be crazies , now the Mental Health question creeps into the picture and must share the blame for the Trigger finally being pulled ! Who of all these entities bears most of the burden of guilt ? You Choose ,but Surely Remington isn’t standing alone at the top of the List !


  5. John Skiles on March 20, 2019 at 9:15 am

    Well said, sir! You mentioned something in passing that deserves more than a passing mention, your weight. Nope, NO finger pointing as I have the age-old problem … the rest of my fingers are pointing back at me! Yep, carrying too much weight is a common problem today. At 70 I’m not likely to lose much of it either. The problem? I carry … everywhere, usually VERY uncomfortably. There are thousands of products on the market, like the products you mentioned above, all are marketed to the perfect male form. I don’t have one of those. Would you consider an article directed to THE REST OF US? We cannot be the only CC’ers who also carry too much weight in ALL the wrong places. Thanks.

  6. John on March 20, 2019 at 9:26 am

    Josh, well written and stated. Marketing is just that, selling an illusion. We have lost the notion of self and self responsibility. Our society has become and caught up in victim and victimology. No longer is the individual responsible for their actions, someone else is to blame. I always say life is about choices. We all make them, some are good and some are bad. Yet, we alone make that choice. We’ll never know what goes through the minds of these individuals (most are dead), I would say our mental health system is broken. That needs fixing but, it won’t fix everything either. I’m older and my observation is that our country has lost it’s moral compass.

  7. Michael T Kelley on March 20, 2019 at 10:04 am

    It is the gun grabbers that have put the idea in the parents head. If you want to charge someone, charge the mother of the nutjob because she failed to secure the weapons. Make people accountable. It would go a long way to making this stop. All a suit will do is the fine print will become longer. Was it wrong, YES, was it the gun, NO.

  8. Bruce on March 20, 2019 at 11:49 am

    Great article and yes it was well written.
    But they are looking for a reason so they just make it up and ignore the facts.
    How about this. What about going after the vehicle manufacturer who got the guy to the school. If he walked, then the shoe company. And of course, you can’t go out without clothes on. And nothing is said about the ammo manufacturer.
    Of course, it was a STOLEN gun. A criminal committed a crime! Amazing. I’m sure that never happens, even with immigration. What is wrong with calling illegal things illegal?

  9. Bill Davis on March 20, 2019 at 5:44 pm

    the ONLY reason this law suit is being rammed down the throats of the American people is because the libturds are still pissed off over the election loss. They are stooping to all kind of lows to get back at America and should be called out on every one of their lame rhetorical statements.

  10. Chuck Troupe on March 21, 2019 at 5:27 am

    I am pretty sure this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. This liberal state court decision is not only wrong … it is stupid … but, that is what liberal, activist judges always are … wrong and stupid. The ONLY time a manufacturer is liable is when their product is defective and that defect has cause harm.

  11. Albert on March 21, 2019 at 7:02 am

    The ‘leftist’ courts are corrupt; Every THREE letter federal agency is CORRUPT; every state agency in a ‘progressive state’ is corrupt…..thanks to the ‘people’ for letting them get away with it.

  12. Denny on April 6, 2019 at 9:40 am

    You’re right on, a lot of these gun grabbers are just ignorant and think that suing and or banning certain kinds of guns is going to stem violence. The more informed gun grabber knows better, it’s a ploy to outlaw all weapons so they can have full control of the populace. All you have to do is look back at history. Hitler, Castro, Stalin and on and on did the same thing and most of us older citizens know what that led to.

  13. Rob on February 16, 2022 at 5:55 pm

    Yeah, as soon as this happened I immediately was thinking they need to sue every car manufacturer and every other producer of any item that may cause harm or death. What ever happened to personal liability and responsibility in this world. This is insane, suing Remington and holding them liable for the actions of someone else. The world has lost it. Madness !!!

Leave a Comment