A Ridiculous Anti-Gun Decision
A Ridiculous Anti-Gun Decision: A Florida jury has awarded a widow of a teacher 1.2 million dollars from a gun distributor after her husband was shot and killed by a teenager. What’s the rational behind this ridiculous decision? Well according to the jury, the gun company distributed a gun that was “unsafe, defective and lacked features that would have prevented a minor from using it.”
Here’s a few questions for the idiotarians on the jury…
Which features does a knife have that “would have prevented a minor from using it?” If this kid had stabbed his teacher to death with a knife, should the knife manufacturer have been held responsible? What if the kid had deliberately ran the teacher down with a car or beaten him to death with a bat, should their manufacturers be sued because they didn’t have features that “would have prevented a minor from using it?”
Oh but it gets better….
“The jury didn’t find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.”
The jury is apparently from some bizarro world where gun manufacturers are held responsible for murders while the people who pull the trigger are treated as blameless. Hopefully, the judges reviewing this when it’s appealed won’t be residents of cloud cuckooland as well and this oddball verdict will be overturned on appeal.