[CaptainBubba]

I like to bring up the government being an operation of coercion as much as possible because once an idea is popularized everyone wants "to see it put it action". I realize you're just commenting on society, but that is the most dangerous thing to attempt and directly change.

I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant.

The companies just produce the guns. Guns are not manufactured to be tools of evil. They save more lives than they take*. The sellers of the guns should be held responsible for any mistakes in sale regulation they make. It should have absolutely nothing to do with any crimes committed with the product. That would be placing an expectation of psychic powers on the sellers.

As long as they follow procedure they shouldn't be held any more accountable than they would be for any other sale. Which is nill. If they sell to a seventeen year old who can't speak english and has a felony on record then obviously we have an issue. But that isn't what this case is about.

*1.Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
*2.According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 40,000 deaths per year. See Accident Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.