Lawyer: Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Settle for $2.5 Million in D.C. Sniper Shootings

AP ^ | Sep 8, 2004 | Anon

[Destro]

Should the fact that the government regulates a business excuse the manufacturer from any oversight of those it chooses to let sell its product?

So was that the basis of the settlement? I mean the manufacturer was only liable because they sold to a dealer that had poor security for their weapons? So if a gun maker only sells to dealers that meet some sort of screening for safety they would not be liable?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

You can read a reply in # 40 that sums it up, but absent the government taking over the responsibility like they have, then Bushmaster should take ordinary care to oversee their dealers and if they don't then it is not unreasonable to hold them partially liable. I have shopped at the old Bullseye and they didn't take what I would consider ordinary care to prevent theft.

[Destro]

Just trying to figure out on what basis they had to settle. Would it be like a tobacco co. being liable for selling its cigs to a store that had a poor system for restricting minors from making purchases?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

It would be hard to quantify any harm caused by a store selling cigarettes to minors so I don't see a direct link that could lead to liability. With government defining and supposedly enforcing the rules on selling to minors I don't see any tobacco company liability.

[Destro]

I was trying to make a comparison to a legal product that can cause harm if a store is negligent -

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I understood your point but guns are rather unique. My original point that you first responded to was that if we were to reduce government regulation of gun sales then we would have to increase the responsibility of gun dealers and makers. In this case I don't think Bushmaster should be held liable but I do understand why they settled.

[spunkets]

Bushmaster's response.