Actually those laws protect all importers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of legal products who sell their non-defective wares in a legal manner to those persons whom they believe to be able to legally purchase said items based upon the documents they are provided with (and in the case of automobiles, firearms, some medication, and most industrial and agricultural chemicals, having consulted with state and federal authorities and logged the sale as the law requires) at time of sale, those documents passing inspection. In other words, they protect the law abiding from the whiny people whom they do not wrong.

If you stab yourself in the leg with a knife, it isn't the sellers fault, now is it?

If you fall off a ladder, unless it is defective, is it your fault?

If try to eat a beer can rather than drink it's contents, you are stupid git and that's the long and the short of it.

If you use a car as a get away vehicle after holding up a liquor store with a knife, the car nor it's seller committed what crime, right?

A seller of pressurized gases who has his stock stolen is in no way responsible if someone ODs on nitrous or makes a series of bottle bombs out of acetylene.

Is the guy who sold the pedophile the hard drive guilty of collection kiddie porn, or is the freak?

If someone buys a lighter, how can they be held accountable if it is used to light the fire that burns down a building?

If you buy sleeping pills and try to overdose on them, is the chemist to blame in your little utopia? I should certainly hope not, or there won't be a single business in the UK in a few years.

But you'll differentiate between these machines and chemical processes which have myriad of legal and legitimate purposes and a legally owned firearm in the hands of a law abiding, mentally competent citizen. That you can manufacture such a fiction, to blame a few pounds of metal, wood and plastic for a crime, amazes me. It has no life, it has no soul, and it can't hurt you in anyway unless another human uses or abuses it. Your solution is to take away the tools; our solution is take away the people who misuse them.

And you accuse us of having a simplistic mindset.

And I'm not even going to bother with your second point other than to say it wasn't a loaded question. I honestly want to know what you think of the American gun owner. As for your moral perspective, I respect it; I think it is based on denial, but I respect your right to have it. But you keep attacking our moral perspective and insulting us.