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.

▲

zephen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The knife manufacturer would be more than happy to continue to sell to you, except for that minor little detail that you're in jail.

▲

gpm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Any knife vendor who

1. Found out you used their knives to go murdering

2. Sells knives in a fashion where it's possible for them to prevent you from buying their knives (i.e. direct to consumer sales)

Would almost certainly not "be more than happy to continue to sell to you". Even if we ignore the fact that most people are simply against assisting in murders (which by itself is a sufficient justification in most companies), the bad PR (see the "found out" and "direct to consumer" part) would make you a hugely unprofitable customer.

▲

zephen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Meh. Not sure why knife dealers would be assumed to be more moral than firearms dealers. See, e.g. Delana v. CED Sales (Missouri)

> the bad PR (see the "found out" and "direct to consumer" part) would make you a hugely unprofitable customer.

That... Doesn't happen.

Boycotts by people who weren't going to buy your product anyway are immaterial to business. The inevitable lawsuits are costly, but are generally thought of as good publicity, because they keep the business name in the news.

	▲	gpm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		People who buy luxury kitchen knives are exactly the type of people who would choose not to buy a product because it is associated with crime. People who buy (and make) firearms are... pretty close to the exact opposite.