A tool is any human-designed object that extends our ability to perform a task. That is the functional definition. Moral weight does not enter into the classification. By that definition, a gun is unambiguously a tool. A gun is engineered to apply controlled force at a distance. Humans use it for specific purposes: hunting animals for food, self-defense, deterrence, sport shooting, and as an instrument of the state via military and law enforcement. In every case, intent, judgment, and responsibility reside entirely with the human operator. The object itself has no agency, will, or decision-making capability. People often confuse what a tool can be used for with what a tool is. That confusion leads to emotional objections rather than logical ones. A scalpel cuts flesh. A chainsaw destroys wood. A nail gun can kill a person. None of those facts remove them from the category of “tool.” Harm potential does not negate tool status; it simply increases the responsibility of the user. This is directly analogous to AI. AI applies computation. A paintbrush applies pigment. A gun applies force. Different domains, same underlying principle: they are instruments that amplify human capability. If someone uses AI to generate spam, or a gun to commit violence, the fault lies with the human actor, not the instrument. If we redefine “tool” to exclude objects we are uncomfortable with, the definition collapses into incoherence. The correct framework is not to anthropomorphize tools, but to hold users accountable for how they are employed. That is why a gun is a tool, not philosophically, but functionally and unambiguously.

It's a tool for killing people.

That's not a good or reasonable purpose for a tool, sure, but it doesn't make it less of a tool, it just makes it morally abhorrent.