From today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-gun-store-trial.html
Badger Guns was ordered (pending appeal) to pay nearly $6 million to two police officers shot by guns illegally sold to a straw buyer. The owner's son took over the store, implementing a variety of changes: But there are also signs laying out strict rules for would-be buyers: “Must be 21 to enter. Proper ID required.” “No cell phones allowed.” And for the droopy-drawered set of possible customers: “Pull your pants up or don’t come in. Try to have some decency and respect. No one wants to see your underwear.” The rules are serious, Schwarz said: Staff members “will ask you to leave” if you show up with a cellphone. The policy is designed to prevent straw buyers from texting photos of guns to friends outside.Mike Allan’s first move was to adopt a members-only model that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee. Would-be buyers must also demonstrate proficiency with a firearm....
I think so. Providing a dangerous tool to an unqualified person can be a kind of reckless endangerment to the public. This can be a difficult judgement call (a car is dangerous too), so you might get better results on a legal-case-by-legal-case basis than trying to apply general rules. The coffee-gun analogy is a bit strained, because of the difference in "worked as designed" outcomes. Also, the famous coffee lawsuit is an interesting story, and not a very good example of the need for tort reform in my view. The customer asked for $20,000 to cover expenses, and McDonald's offered $800, then it went to court. Interestingly, McDonald's was already printing warnings on the coffee cups at the time.