You're the one who sets up and arms the land mine, you're the one who launches the nuke. It's not the land mine's fault, it's not the nuke's fault, it's your fault. You're the one who pulls the trigger, it's your fault. By the way...got something against rednecks?

As Larry the Cable Guy says, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

The comparison is a poor one. There's quite a difference in file-sharing programs, created specifically to swap music, and firearms, which are (contrary to some people's thinking, or rather, lack thereof) NOT created and intended for use in crime.

"A similar analogy to filesharing can be found in the case of drug manufacturers. If a pharmaceutical company sells methodone, morphine etc to a hospital, then they can argue they're not responsible for any subsequent misuse of their product. When you sell to a hospital, you can reasonably presume they'll be responsible. However, if that same company sells a crate of medication to Cletus from Alabama, they'd have a harder time arguing 'reasonable care'. Again, the issue is what the company intended, and what they knew would happen to their product in that instance."

Very good point. Just like...well, guns. Firearm manufacturers do background checks on the people they sell guns to. They don't set up shop in a ghetto and put up "Buy one get one free!" signs. Guns are manufactured for safe, legal usage. Whether it be protection, or collecting, or hunting, or simple recreation, firearms are nor produced with the intent of their use in crime. More gun control laws would only take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. It MIGHT effect the numbers of firearms in the hands of criminals, but in doing so, it would durastically decrease the entire idea of an armed populace, and the many many criminals that would still have, or be able to get ahold of, guns would encounter very little resistance with whatever muggings, rapes, assaults, robberies, and home invasions they intend to take part in.