Why the hell is the gun company forced to pay?

I know that and you know that, but this is just one way the Liberals try to influence us through movies. More BS from the left.

This movie was an early propaganda attempt to have the public believe that gun makers are the final responsibility for the actions of people.

Now it's 2013 - and we DO have Mr. Joe Averages who does believe that the gun manufacturers are responsible for killings and shootings done with their products.

The movie was too early - since then they** have engaged on a campaign of reducing personal responsibility and redirecting responsibility.

Now the US has a population who either can't work out who is responsible for something or apportions the responsibility to the wrong people... i.e. zero concept of "responsibility"..

And we also, non-coincidentally, people who ARE calling for gun makers to be sued!!

((** yes, there IS a "they".. take a wide, long term, look at the last 30 years or ao.. there are long term plans and agenda that supersede political parties and "left" or "right". Long term plans like that require a constant controlling body (not changing political parties).. so, yes, there is a "they"))

I don't agree either but at the same time that company was downright irresponsible in making print free guns. There could also have been something to prevent that person buying so many guns without it drawing any suspicion. But those should ideally be dealt with by the legislature so there are some ground rules.

The gun company were found guilty not because they killed the family man and his work colleagues, but because they made it so easy for it to happen by not asking the right questions.

a). why was this one gun shop owner selling so many of the same type of firearm, more than any other gun shop every month? -

Because the gun shop owner was selling them all to a black market trader

b). did the gun manufacturer ask probing questions about how and why this gun shop owner was able to sell so many every month? -

No, instead of questioning the suspicious behaviour, they rewarded the gunshop owner with a holiday to Cancun....and continued to sell this particular model gun in high volume to the gun shop owner.

The movie was trying to suggest that the gun manufacturer should have vetted the gun shop owner better, and in turn then these guns wouldn't have appeared on the black market. If they didn't appear on the black market, then, the logic goes that the killer wouldn't be able to get a gun and kill anyone.

Obviously its nonsense, but from the perspective of the movie, it at least makes sense.

This signature has stupidity!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgACO7ZBuw

Boring though it sounds, this film would have benefited from a little exposition of the law of negligence. Otherwise to many people it doesn't make much sense (and it still probably wouldn't make complete sense, but one shouldn't ask for too much).

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

You could make that argument about drug dealers too. Why should drug dealers be punished for people overdosing ? They just supply the product.

Tell it to Remington after Sandy Hook.