It was the fourth deadliest civilian massacre in United States history.

Adam Lanza, who broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School in the small town of Newtown on December 14, 2012, shot dead 20 first graders and six staff members, his mother and himself. Relatives of those killed are now receiving a total of $73 million.

The families agreed to a settlement with the gun company Remington, which made the "Bushmaster" assault rifle used by the mass murderer.

The lawsuit involved families of five murdered students and four adult victims.

Rifle and revolver manufacturers are fully protected under American law from being held legally accountable by those involved in gun violence.

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by then-President George W. Bush, keeps them at bay from charges that would allege criminal responsibility for acts of violence.

Therefore, the Sandy Hook families instead referred to Connecticut state consumer protection laws.

They argued that Remington's advertising legitimized aggression and crime.

The company is now insolvent – ​​the settlement amount will be paid by insurance companies.

"Regaining Lost Manhood with Guns"

The relatives of the murdered accuse Remington of having contributed to the incitement of violent people and so-called "couch commandos" through advertising campaigns.

The expression is sometimes used for people who become radicalized in front of the television or the computer.

The arms manufacturer had advertised, among other things, with the expression "Man Card" - such a fictitious ID card for masculinity could be regained through their own products, invented advertising slogans.

"Consider your Man Card reissued," read one advert alongside a picture of the Bushmaster assault rifle.

In the colloquial language of some subcultures, the “man card” can be forfeited if someone is criticized by a woman or shows weakness.

The ad campaign said the changing world was rapidly depleting testosterone, but by purchasing the "Bushmaster" gun you were showing you were of the "dying breed" of the manliest.

Remington is also said to have engaged in product placement in violent video games.

Sandy Hook's mass murderer was 20 years old at the time and was allegedly vulnerable to those messages, prosecutors said.

The agreement between Remington and the families of the murdered is also significant because the million-dollar payment is not the only condition.

Administrators of the bankrupt company also agreed to release thousands of pages of internal papers that provide insight into advertising strategies.

The case has since made its way to the Connecticut Supreme Court after the families filed the lawsuit in 2014.

The judges had decided that the proceedings could continue.

And the Supreme Court in Washington had also rejected an objection by the company.

According to the "Mass Shooting Tracker Project", in 2021 alone, 703 people died in 693 so-called mass shootings, in which at least four people are shot according to the definition of non-profit.

Again and again there are acts of violence with guns in schools.

Names like Sandy Hook are in the public debate for the failed efforts of several American governments to curb gun violence and to regulate the purchase of rifles and revolvers more tightly.

Obama promised reforms - without success

After the mass murder in Connecticut, then-President Barack Obama gave a speech in which he promised sweeping reforms.

But all attempts failed due to the majority in Congress, but above all due to the influence of the arms manufacturer lobby in Washington.

Families of murdered students often join the political struggle for more regulation, as in Newtown.

From the beginning, the families' goal was "to do whatever they could to prevent the next Sandy Hook," plaintiff attorney Josh Koskoff told the New York Times.

The families had turned down an earlier offer from Remington to pay them $33 million.

After the settlement became known, President Joe Biden said it was a prelude to holding gun manufacturers accountable and disclosing their marketing strategies.

Lawyers emphasized that the lawsuit showed that despite the comprehensive protection of the arms manufacturers, it is possible to prosecute them legally.

It is good for the families that they receive such a large sum from the settlement.

However, the agreement means that the country is avoiding a court ruling that could have legally defined the responsibility of the arms manufacturers more clearly.