I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal?

I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone...

I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.

Don't get me wrong, I also don't see it personally. I just think that the framing is useful: it highlights how our society has a bias towards business and a bias against morality-driven initiatives

If selling the weapons is "ok" because business must be allowed because the motive is purely selfish (I just want to make a living for myself and my family), and giving away weapons is "suspect" because "you clearly have an ulterior motive", if just means that we live in a world where selfishness is the norm being altruists is suspect.

I think this is the core divide of our society, much more useful than the obsolete "left" and "right" divide