ONLINE FEEDBACK

Commenters on the article “Gun control advocates say Newtown ruling is bad precedent” (March 28) began by noting that the give-and-take can on gun-related stories be predictable. However, here’s what they went on to say about the legal question at issue.

“Everyone knows - it’s not the gun that does the killing.” — Marine1992

“How can you make a case to sue a manufacturer of a product that is designed to kill when it is used by a criminal to kill someone???

“As opposed to an automobile which is designed to be safe and has the expectation to save lives but can be used by a criminal to kill.

“Will BMW be sued because a BMW SUV was used to run down tourists on a bridge in London last week?” —wylie

“pharmaceutical companies can be sued for introducing FDA approved life saving medicines.. they are sued all the time.. 1 in a million people have a bad reaction or even say they had a bad reaction to what is otherwise a great medication and bingo...” —Brian Thomas

“We sue bartenders and bars for selling alcohol to people who then get into accidents.” —Scatter

“In America we have the right to air our grievances in court. Whether or not we as citizens believe in the merits of a particular case or not should not prevent any of us from honoring this right.

“I think that shielding gun manufacturers from litigation, the only industry in this country that’s protected this way, is a travesty of this country’s ideals. Why not let the merits of any particular case stand on it’s own merits and let the chips fall where they may?” —nlbngr