They were designed to kill.
The Olympian's rifle was designed to win competitions. I suppose you could claim that the very first gun was designed as a weapon -- although that's debateable -- but then you are stuck not only defending the attribution of intent to inanimate objects, but also the idea that anything initially designed for one purpose may never be considered for another purpose.
Their primary purpose is as a weapon.
Then they are being misused quite a bit. Would you care to discuss how many rounds are sent downrange for recreation vs. how many are used offensively?
...and I've never heard anyone at the range calling it a "tool."
How many Olympic competitors or benchrest shooters have you heard refering to their high-dollar competition guns as "weapons"?
By your logic you could call an anti-personnel mine a tool because it could also be used to create a big hole in something.
By your logic an anti-personnel mine cannot be considered a weapon because high explosives were originally intended for industrial use.
I think you'd have a hard time finding ppl to say it's more of a tool than a weapon.
There's at least one other right on this thread.
