Deseret News | Reader comments: Trolley Square gun suit ongoing

Reader comments
Trolley Square gun suit ongoing

marguerite | 5:46 p.m. June 8, 2009

I think this paralyzed lady is right in saying that charges should be pressed against a shop that sold a gun illegally. However, I hope this isn't taken to mean that the shop itself is responsible for the shooting. It really aggravates me when people fall for such stupidity.

Scott | 5:48 p.m. June 8, 2009

This is a classic example of our legal system run amuck.

Common Sense: An Uncommon Virtue | 6:11 p.m. June 8, 2009

Agreed. Should a gun shop (or pawn shop) make sure they're selling a gun illegally or not?

Absolutely.

Should they be held liable if the new owner kills someone?

No freaking way....

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 6:29 p.m. June 8, 2009

Accountability reigns!
Justice is served!
Next step "Gun Control" (Not ban but control)
Rednecks find guns their justice.
Accountability must be enforced to LIMIT these types of actions that we read daily in our papers.

Um, Marguerite? | 8:43 p.m. June 8, 2009

Stacy is a man.

Rifle Stock & Pistol Grip | 10:04 p.m. June 8, 2009

Talofic could have legally bought the same shotgun configured just like it was if there had been a rifle stock in the box. Then he could have simply left it like it was and done what he did. How did the presence or absence of a rifle stock cause or contribute to this shooting? It didn't and it's SERIOUSLY unfair to blame the dealer for selling this shotgun to a boy who is 18 and can buy a shotgun at that age. Any verdict against this dealer would be solely upon sympathy and not the law.

Just wondering | 8:16 a.m. June 9, 2009

"Such weapons have no legitimate sporting purposes, Burbidge argued.."

So, I suppose if Talovic had used a duck gun to create his terroristic carnage Burbidge would have refused the case? I doubt it.

It is not a requirement of law that guns have legitimate sporting purpose in order to meet Second Amendment guaranty. In fact, that amendment is in place to protect militaristic weapons. Those weapons or any other are not to blame for their misuse, nor is the dealer that sold it.

Mephistopheles | 8:57 a.m. June 9, 2009

If I sold a car to someone who later killed a person while driving drunk can I be sued as being criminally negligent by selling the car to that individual?
IF this case is successful we should be able to sue car dealerships for selling the cars used by drunk drivers. How silly.

Utahn | 10:07 a.m. June 9, 2009

How does a pistol grip make this gun more lethal than a rifle stock??? The same size shell is used. Pellets still come out of the barrell and death still insues whether he holds it with a pistol grip or up to his shoulder with a rifle stock. I am sorry for what happened that night and can't imagine the pain and suffering one man created, but can we please stop blaming the gun?? They are grasping at straws. This case is about money and trying to get someone else to pay except for the one person who is ultimately responsible.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.