Who's to blame in this situation?

You also don't let the man buy the corvette without a license. You also don't let the man buy the whiskey without showing that he is over 21. In other words, because we have car control and alcohol control, to a far greater degree than gun control.

Nobody blames the guns but they make it too easy for people to commit mass murder

We all know the LEFT are agenda driven. In your scenario, the man was a Rich person so a new agenda pops up blame the Rich and the Man; 2 of the LEFTs favor groups to HATE.

Because a car's main purpose is to get people from place to place, a gun's only purpose is to kill. It's not like people are using guns as hammers to build houses, and then just every once in a while instead of using them as hammers, some idiot uses them to kill something. That is their only purpose. And don't say target practice, because that is just practice to kill something.

Wait, where was the pedestrian?

Your are correct. If we were to blame the corvette and the whiskey we might put on tough restrictions on the use of both. We would require licenses to operate a corvette, register that corvette, put restrictions on the purchase of liquor.

OH! WAIT we DO have those restrictions! Perhaps we should have the same for guns! You should register every gun, like we do corvettes, require both written and skills tests before you obtain a license to operate a gun like we do for the corvette, set age limits on the purchase or operation of a gun, and ban private sale of guns like we do with alcohol.

Thank you for opening our eyes on appropriate gun restrictions...just like we do with cars and whiskey.

I absolutely love when morons try to make this argument, it backfires on them every time.

Depends

If the man was intoxicated when he bought the bottle of whiskey then the person who sold it to him is criminally responsible for the death of the pedestrian

I don't think anyone 'blames' guns. They just increase the probability of fatalities occurring. He could have still killed someone if he was riding a bicycle, only it would have been a lot less likely.

Anything can be a weapon. Cars are not intended as weapons. Firearms are.

Following along your example though: The person driving the car had to have it registered and pay annual fees to drive as well as maintain insurance and a transfer of title between the two parties. Why shouldn't the same apply to something much more dangerous like guns?

After the Idiot What Named Itself "?":

If I had blocked you, you wouldn't be able to comment on my answer. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

If that man drank a bottle of whiskey then put on running shoes and plowed into a pedestrian the result would be a few bruises at worst. Pretending the gun is irrelevant is naive and unrealistic.