Nah. This argument is going to get into the weeds about the purpose of each object. They'll say a gun's purpose is to kill people, so it's an invalid comparison.

I think a better argument is car manufacturers. Say a car manufacturer knowingly sells a model with a flaw that causes the fuel tank to explode in some cases. They market it by saying it's a safe car, even though they know that some are going to have exploding fuel tanks. The government then grants them blanket immunity from any deaths caused by the exploding tanks. To top it off, any time a tank explodes and kills someone, the government tallies it as an unknown accident unrelated to exploding fuel tanks. The government then puts out reports showing that the cars don't suffer from exploding fuel tanks and that the cars are safe to drive.