PhotonGuy said:
The word "tool" is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task," and in Wikipedia as, "an object used to extend the ability of an individual to modify features of the surrounding environment."
So knives, swords, and guns can all be called tools. Sure, swords, guns, and knives are often used as weapons but a weapon is a type of tool.
You are arguing semantics. It doesn't hold up.
Swords and knives were not developed as "tools," they were developed as weapons. Over the course of many centuries, they have come to have numerous different sub-designs, but the underlying concept was "weapon." Dogs began as domesticated wolves, and over the course of many centuries have developed into the myriad of breeds we have and know today. That doesn't change the fact that the domestic dog originated as a wolf.
The same is true of guns ("fire arms"). The "fire arm" was developed by the Chinese as a weapon of war, for the purpose of killing the enemy. That was the origin of the species and, as Glenn commented, denying that reality makes us look foolish. The "fire arm" was not developed or conceived as a benign "tool," something that could be used for any of a number of purposes. Look at your definition of "tool." A tool is a "handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task." What task was the "fire arm" developed to accomplish? Let's be honest -- the "fire arm" was developed to accomplish the task of killing people from farther away than could be done using swords and lances.
That's the "what is" about guns. Are there some modern "fire arms" that were designed for a primary purpose other than killing people? Yes -- the most extreme examples perhaps being the very expensive and specialized guns used in Olympic competition. But to argue that
those guns weren't designed for killing is like arguing that your wife's Toy Poodle isn't related to a wolf because Toy Poodles don't hunt wild prey.
An Olympic pistol can kill. A Crossman or Daisy BB gun can kill.
There is one area where the "it's a tool" argument has merit. That, IMHO, is not in trying to claim that guns were not designed for killing. Where the "it's a tool" argument has merit is in arguing that the gun should not be blamed for the crimes committed by the shooter.
A screwdriver is, for the most part, a rather specialized tool. It was designed to do a certain task -- to turn threaded pieces of metal so they will advance into whatever it is that you want to hold together. It's a tool, and turning screws is the task for which it was developed. But screwdrivers can be (and are) used for other purposes. Straight-blade screwdrivers are the implement of choice for prying the lids of paint cans. Screwdrivers get used as pry bars in all sorts of situations (often to the detriment of the screwdriver). Screwdrivers have also been used as stabbing weapons. But, just as we wouldn't (probably) say that screwdrivers were designed as stabbing weapons, we also shouldn't try to claim that guns were "designed" (which, in the broad context I think means the species "fire arm," not the Olympic target pistol specifically) as "tools" rather than as military weapons.