> What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove?
The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things.
> this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court
I thought so too and then read the complaint. Some excerpts here [1]. I'm not seeing a weak case. (Nor one that won't generate favourable headlines for this AG the whole way through.)
> The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable
Uh, okay? But the topic wasn't about guns per se, someone just brought guns up as one example of a dangerous product which can be sold to consumers. They just happened to pick a uniquely poor example due to a special exception. My point was that you seized on the exception to reject that one poor example but never addressed the poster's underlying point.
Given HN's community preference to engage in good faith by interpreting other poster's in the most charitable way possible, you could have replied, "Well, guns aren't a good example to support your point due to a unique exception, but... to your point, there are other dangerous products which ARE sold to consumers without special exemptions, so in those cases..." and then added your point or counter-point.
I still don't know if you had a point which refutes or even addresses that a lot of very dangerous products are legally sold to consumers, so a product actually being dangerous isn't enough by itself to make OAI guilty of anything. In saying "that proves the rule" you seemed to be implying that without a special exemption like guns have, dangerous products would be liable for any harm they cause - which clearly isn't always the case.