by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business, a policy which has moved from a status of questionable legitimacy to wide acceptance as a justification for strict products liability); Andrew O. Smith, Comment, The Manufacture and Distribution of Handguns as an Abnormally Dangerous Activity, 54 U. Chi. L.Rev. 369 (1987) (although recognizing that courts reject the notion, the economics of handgun injuries support the application of the abnormally dangerous activity doctrine to the manufacturing of handguns, especially since the manufacturers inject products into commerce “intended to facilitate the infliction of grave personal injury”); Paul R. Bonney, Manufacturers’ Strict Liability for Handgun Injuries: An Economic Analysis, 73 Geo. L.J. 1437 (1985) (<HOLDING>). We are not persuaded that the articles
holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries recognizing the cause of action recognizing that no court has allowed recovery against a manufacturer for injuries caused by a properly functioning handgun but outlining the desirability of such a cause of action and suggesting that handgun manufacturers should in fairness bear the enormous costs of handgunrelated injuries holding that manufacturer may be liable for design defects that enhance rather than cause injuries holding that the plaintiff was not barred by hrs  3865 from seeking common law tort remedies against his insurer for injuries caused by the insurers  outrageous and intentional denial of medical benefits and disability payments  because such injuries were not  work injuries  within the scope of hrs chapter 386