Would We Shield Guns from the Blame they Deserve?

   Guns kill. Then, once they've killed someone, we shield them from fault by vehemently declaring that guns don't kill, people do.
   Guns kill. Bullets from their chambers fire into people heads, and hearts, and lungs and kill people.
   Guns kill.
  You can say people are the ones who make the decisions to kill, but guns do the killing. They kill. We might not want to face up to it, but guns kill. We might be in denial, but guns kill.
   Would we absolve them of all fault? Would we shield them and protect them? After they have taken the lives of  hundreds and thousands and millions, would we say, "Don't blame the poor gun. It wasn't its fault."
   Would we shield them by saying, "Long before there were guns, people were killing"? Would we protect them by saying, "If it they didn't have guns, killers would just find another weapon to use"? Yes, people have long been killing with clubs and ice picks and even scissors, but few weapons administer death so efficiently and to so many people at once as do guns. They are the choice of killers. Killers choose guns to do the killing because guns are often the best tool for the task.
   Guns kill, and guns kill the best.
   What is it about us, that we protect guns, that we seek to turn away blame from them? It doesn't have to mean that we can't see the good side of guns if we admit that guns kill. Guns can still protect. They can still save lives as well as they take them.
   But they kill, simple as that. Anybody who says otherwise is in denial. Why do we get upset when someone says guns kill? Why do we seek to defend them from this simple truth? We shouldn't shield the killers themselves from fault, and we shouldn't shift that part of the blame that guns deserve away from them.
    Guns kill. As surely as a bullet to the heart, guns kill.