LogFAQs > #976942344

Lokison posted...

I didn't say that, I was pointing out how stupid the whole thing is. Hence the baseball bat comment. If you're gonna do the whole "the store and manufacturer should be held liable", how for will does it go? Baseball Bats are one of the most used weapons in assaults. It would be absolutely stupid to try and go after those people for all the skull cracked, so why are we gonna jump on the gun manufacturer?

Honestly seems like you get my side.

A baseball bat exists to play baseball with. Sure you can assault someone with it, but you could assault someone with a sheet of A4 paper, humans are pretty inventive. The intended goal of this item is to play a game.

A gun exists solely to shoot something. Literally every function it has comes from the ability to fire a projectile with enough force to literally kill something. The intended goal of this item is to kill something.

You will notice that these are not the same.

In addition, there is already plenty of precedent for criminal levels of negligence. If you serve someone alcohol when they've clearly had enough, you can get done for that, especially if something ends up happening because of that level of intoxication. I don't know if you could get the weapons manufacturers (although morally they're absolutely responsible through lobbying) but you could absolutely go after stores not doing their due diligence.