There is a big difference in putting together deadly artifacts and electronic devices you can fabricate using off-the-shelf chips and open protocols. Not saying you can't discuss regulating them, but to me they are in a different set of categories. Weapons are by default dangerous, their sole purpose being to cause physical harm, while a flipper zero can be used for instructional purposes and research.
As much as I hate the concept, it would be ridiculous for me to propose regulating Alexa because a kid can cause financial harm to the parents using it, but a weapon can't be in any imaginable circumstance reachable by anyone untrained.
> but a weapon can't be in any imaginable circumstance reachable by anyone untrained.
I agree with your main point that the FZ is easily reproduced. I think you miss the mark with this one. Firearms are easily made at home with simple tools and off-the-shelf materials. For example, the United States has a rich tradition of home-made firearms. To provide a concrete example, a shotgun can be made with a length of steel plumbing pipe, electrical tape, a nail, and a cap. Yes, it's that simple.
If by social danger you mean I would be really impressed if you managed to throw a flipper zero into someone and kill him, then yes that is the gist. It's a matter of degree.
>while a flipper zero can be used for instructional purposes and research.
Only in the same way a weapon can be used for instructional purposes and research. Someone buying an off the shelf product and using it in the way it was intended isn't doing research except in the loosest sense of the word. E.g. "Does the radio transmission open this garage door? Does it open this garage door? Does it open this garage door?" v "Does this rock swung hard cave in this skull? Does it cave in this skull? Does it cave in this skull?"
