3 ms·
Ya, but those cases have tended to get a bit more traction because the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and there are lots of things that gun makers could
by jjeaff 2y ago
Ya, but those cases have tended to get a bit more traction because the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and there are lots of things that gun makers could do to make it more difficult to kill people with them (like built in locking mechanisms). A little different than say, a hammer, which is not meant as a weapon of death.
- wyager 2y agoGun manufacturers could add pointless and customer-hostile complications to guns just like apple can add customer-hostile complications to airtags. The case against Apple is even stronger, because at least apple's complications have a chance of doing something useful, and Apple provides an ongoing service where firearm manufacturers do not. There's also no reasonable standard by which you can claim guns are being made to murder people but AirTags are not being made to stalk people. A vanishingly small fraction of total sales ever goes towards either of these undesirable use cases. The smart move here is to get your risk models in order and stop worrying about either of these things.