Reply #8: It is not the makers....

[the_acid_one]

....responsibility to insure that the third or forth buyer of a product is psychologically balanced enough to own a gun.


Glock sells gun to Government Approved FFL holder, who then sells gun to NICS approved gun-buyer, who then sells gun to his cousin, who maybe uses it in a murder in the future.

Thats hardly Glocks responsiblity. They're so far removed from the transaction that there's no way any sane person can begin to think it's their fault.

Even if the FFL holder sells to someone and they go commit a murder, thats not Glocks fault either. The government liscensed said FFL holder, and they NICS approved the buyer. So basically it's a government approved transaction all the way.

And if the FFL holder is corrupt, then why did the government liscense them in the first place? Seems to me, that it's THEIR responsibility to insure that FFL holders they liscense are clear. Glock doesnt have the resources, or the duty to insure that all FFL holders are "Extra OK" after the government gives them the initial ok.

SO How is glock responsible for any of this? They're not.
No more so then ginsu, if I stab someone with a ginsu knife. Or Honda, if someone runs over me in their civic.

If Glocks product works as advertised, and Glock sells only to liscensed FFL holders or Police Departments, then Glock has done their job and isnt liable, and thats all there is to it.