Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your understanding about how this works is incorrect, I think that's the problem. If a product being sold is primarily being used for a purpose which violates the law and does not otherwise have fair usage the government can and has pursued and won legal cases resulting in the product being banned. That is no different here. The reason for interviewing consumers is to help determine what the product is being used for…
> If the vast majority of the time the roll of duct tape was used in the commission of a crime, it absolutely could and likely would be banned. Which continues to be an absurd premise. So if the original use case for duct tape was kidnappings then it should be forever banned because a sample taken at that time had that statistical distribution, and thereafter no other uses can be adopted because it's banned? It seems…
As someone who is pro 2nd-Amendment (but not pro-gun) I of course appreciate this argument.
There are certainly gray areas. The most immediate example that comes to mind are bongs or other items used for smoking pot (maybe other things? I'm not too sure). Ultimately it comes down to what the government and regulators think, what they can argue in court, and so forth. And if the people don't like it, they can take democratic political action.