Weaponized Toy

As the weapons trade thrives, companies have become more strict about items they ship or allow in baggage. Weapons and combat-oriented creatures are commonly banned. In response, arms dealers and tech-minded assassins build combat drones disguised as toys. Many of these constructs are concealed only for transport, but some integrate their innocuous appearance into their functions with the intent of fooling potential victims as much as shipping securely. Not to be overlooked is the humiliation of being attacked by a toy.
One popular design is the devil-in-a-box. A figure, scary or cute, is stuffed into a box or similar container, from which it springs when activated. The construct has serrated limbs or jaws capable of slicing through modern composites and a keen virtual intelligence programmed to identify and track targets and to maim or kill. Common “devils” range from literal fiends to Skittermander with saw-like jaws or model Swarm thresher lords. These murderous toys are common enough that modern security gives more scrutiny to them in customs and boarding processes, but telling a mere toy from a killer drone is difficult.
High-end gaming devices have been used for similar ends. Gamedroids normally function, singly or in groups, to create sophisticated holographic game environments using rechargeable banks of spell chips embedded in their onboard casting units. Installing new spell chips into a prepackaged casting unit is difficult. However, weaponized casting units can be scratch-built in a reasonable amount of time and installed into gamedroids. A shipment of gamedroids can then become a delivery of assassins, loaded with combat magic. Like other weaponized toys, these lethal constructs need only to be assigned a target. And, since off-the-shelf models can be weaponized, tracing the perpetrators can be problematic.
Laws to control weaponized toys are hard to create and enforce. Lobbyists balk at legislation that burdens manufacturers or slows shipping. Apostae's lobbyists in particular have been vocal that laws mustn’t hold producers accountable for misuse of their goods, as the precedent would be untenable and the reach overlarge. Responsibility lies, industry advocates insist, with law enforcement and the criminals who perpetrate such abuse.