3 ms·

Just to be clear, my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with attorneys. But this is more interesting; >> If you sell a gun to an unstable crazy who shoot

Just to be clear, my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with attorneys. But this is more interesting; >> If you sell a gun to an unstable crazy who shoots up the neighbourhood then some blame lies with you. > bad point to lean on - in America laws are specifically structured to leave the selling party blameless True perhaps. But I did not raise a point of law. This is an ethical chestnut that traces back to at least Plato. Perhaps unclear from my wording I'm implying you know the buyer to be a killer, and so it would be irresponsible to sell. Anyway, my suggested legal revision doesn't rely on whether the seller knows or not, but on the buyers legitimacy to hold the patent.

munk-a 4y ago
As depressing as this may be - we're talking about the legal system so ethical standards aren't really relevant. America (and well, everywhere mostly) has historically had a lot of extremely unethical laws. Currently on the ground most weapon sales don't require extensive background checks which frees the seller of any legal liability - it is illegal to sell a gun to a dangerous person, but it's not illegal to clamp your hands over your eyes and ears and never run a background check in the first place... thus, legally, remaining ignorant of the individual's fitness to own a firearm. This is an extremely divisive topic in America so I'd really just suggest avoiding any gun or self-defense related analogies whenever possible.