I take issue with the first line. To go right to the most "devils advocate" point; Do gun manufacturers ever take responsibility for the regular mass murders w

I take issue with the first line. To go right to the most "devils advocate" point; Do gun manufacturers ever take responsibility for the regular mass murders we experience? There is certainly more and more direct abuse in that space than in self driving car software. To attack my own point; one could make a statement that their software falls prey to not accomodating for known human failings (negligence), however, I see that same parallel with driving a car period, and we don't blame the car makers for a negligent accident. In this case I can certainly see how that line is blurred, but I would hesitate to not put duress on the user of a dangerous tool to _USE IT APPROPRIATELY_. There is only so much I would hold a company responsible for in terms to protect someone against themselves when evidence seems to indicate the consumer was the negligent party. Let me conclude with a rephrasing of your statement to demonstrate the incredularity I feel, and then weaken my argument with a concession "Budweiser needs to take responsibility... it's shocking to me how they can still sell beer when it has proven to kill"; the concession being as with beer we've found a level of regulation may be reasonable, perhaps we should be asking the same question of self driving cars than to place the blame soley on the producer, especially when you yourself admit to seeing absolutely rampant terrible behavior on part of the drivers that should be punished on its own merits, ignoring any context of tesla/automation.