That simile captures perfectly the logic here. I don't think it's technically sarcasm

EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it

I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal?

I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone...

I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.