Playing devil's advocate: if I did in fact grab one of my kitchen knives to defend myself against a violent intruder into my kitchen, I wouldn't expect to be banned from buying kitchen knives.
I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...
And if you grabbed the knife and went on a violent spree, I'd absolutely expect the knife manufacturer to refuse to sell to you anymore.
The knife manufacturer isn't obligated to sell to you in either case, I'd expect them not to cut ties with you in the self defence scenario. But it is their choice.
If I shoot someone, something that is explicitly warned against in firearm safety materials that come with every purchase of a new firearm, I am no longer allowed to purchase any more firearms.
The specific shape of a kitchen knife would make it a particularly poor fighting knife, and knives in general are bad for self defense, due to the potential for it to be turned against the user. So, there is a good argument that such a suggestion is really in the user's best interest rather than a cynical play for the manufacturer to limit liability.
No it isn't. There are warnings, but once a knife is yours you are free to do whatever you want with it, including reselling it to someone else. The idea of terms of service of using something is not something that typically exists with physical objects that one can own. They can't take your knife away from you because you decided to use it for a medical purpose without purchasing a medical license for the knife.
Wowfunhappy|2 days ago
I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...
dwattttt|2 days ago
The knife manufacturer isn't obligated to sell to you in either case, I'd expect them not to cut ties with you in the self defence scenario. But it is their choice.
Loughla|2 days ago
moron4hire|2 days ago
charcircuit|2 days ago
medi8r|2 days ago
Edit: hell I get downvoted and look where the knife analogy got us. A load of weird replies miles away from anything related to AI or DoD.
MeetingsBrowser|2 days ago
SauntSolaire|2 days ago