3 ms·
"But what about the abundance of weapons? Or the ease of use? Or the accessibility of weapons in situations where you are emotionally unstable?" The designer (
by OedipusRex 11y ago
"But what about the abundance of weapons? Or the ease of use? Or the accessibility of weapons in situations where you are emotionally unstable?"
The designer (in this case Kalashnikov) had no control over the abundance of his design or who gets access to them. As for ease of use, if you want to learn how to use a firearm (or any skills for that matter) you can. Ease of use is not a deterrent.
- sabertoothed 11y agoI see your point but one could argue that someone who creates a weapon is - to some extent - responsible for what happens with it. The big problem I see in the text that OP linked is that the author did not define what he means by good design. If you assume good design must incorporate a moral dimension, then I could easily follow his arguments. Personally, I would think an object could be brilliantly designed but completely immoral or unethical. I mainly used the abundance argument to counter the either naive or malicious statement of "blaming the spoon for being fat". This is being used by gun nuts. It is not a fair comparison.