(02-15-2022, 11:24 PM)Jags Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 11:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase or plant the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Shall we take a closer look at the Acme Bomb Company??? What “bomb” company?

That's the point.  Bombs don't have a privileged place in our laws and constitution.  There are very strict restrictions on the sale and distribution of anything that could be used as a bomb.  
Meanwhile, your right to own a gun is protected in the constitution.  Gun manufacturers are protected from most lawsuits by law.  Yet we still see de facto gun regulation creeping forward.  Sure, you can still own a gun, but what if no company wants the liability of marketing a gun to you? 
Law, uh, finds a way.

---

(02-15-2022, 11:34 PM)Sneakers Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 11:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: Is that a sound argument? Suppose instead of a shooting, instead Parkland was a bombing incident.  Would you let anyone who helped the perp make or purchase the bomb totally off the hook for any civil or criminal liability?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "accessory before the fact".  

If you kill someone driving a sports car at 150 mph on Beach Blvd. is the car manufacturer liable?

There are numerous regulations on manufacturing and marketing and selling cars so it is very easy for anyone on that chain to establish that they followed a standard of care and should not be held negligent in any action brought by a private individual.  In fact, car manufacturers and dealers are more fearful of action brought by the feds or the states that they might have violated one of these numerous regulations.  
Guns have comparatively few regulations, making it difficult to prove that a manufacturer or distributor applied the correct standard of care.  What is the correct standard of care?

---