he sold the guy a magazine, trying to connect him to the shooter in some way is like blaming a gas station attendant for a traffic accident. plus the line about that anti gun group trying to ban private sales wasn't relevant at all, since all online purchases must go through an FFL.
kaveman, As I said to Sebastian on the other thread, I'm not totally convinced Thompson should be held responsible. I am ambivalent still, but mainly I find myself agreeing with what all you guys have been saying, that the seller of a product cannot be held responsible for its misuse.
If you take it further to the FBI agents who approved the background checks or the parents who raised these nutjobs, it gets even more difficult to sustain, which I guess is your point. Good point, well taken.
he sold the guy a magazine, trying to connect him to the shooter in some way is like blaming a gas station attendant for a traffic accident. plus the line about that anti gun group trying to ban private sales wasn't relevant at all, since all online purchases must go through an FFL.
ReplyDeleteQuick question.
ReplyDeleteWhy no mention of the FBI agents who approved the sale of the guns, where guns were actually bought.
Should those FBI agents, in your opinion, be partially liable for these mass shootings?
Isn't the FBI, part of the problem?
The little "commercial" at the end for the anti-gun group was silly and irrelevant. It had nothing to do with the story.
ReplyDeletekaveman, As I said to Sebastian on the other thread, I'm not totally convinced Thompson should be held responsible. I am ambivalent still, but mainly I find myself agreeing with what all you guys have been saying, that the seller of a product cannot be held responsible for its misuse.
ReplyDeleteIf you take it further to the FBI agents who approved the background checks or the parents who raised these nutjobs, it gets even more difficult to sustain, which I guess is your point. Good point, well taken.