This is mostly about guns, but it can work in other scenarios. Why do you believe that so many people find it rational and okay to blame the weapons used in crimes? A few things worth noting: A "weapon" is not just a gun, grenade, or knife but anything used to commit or attempt a violent act. This essentially makes anything a potential weapon. So when we say "weapon" we are referring to the object or item the person used to commit the act. Also, let's just get the old analogy out of the way: how can you blame the tool of the crime since it's just like blaming a pencil for bad grades? Well, let's take a look at a few common aspects of the ancient tool vs. user argument regarding actions and their responsibilities. A tool is a means to an end. You use a tool to make a job easier, to require less time and effort. The end result is solely your responsibility. Say you come to a deep canyon. You can't make it across but you need to. So you build a bridge. Now you can cross and come back through as you please. Let's say you then get yelled at by your wife or husband for being out of the house too often because you can now cross the bridge and walk through the woods on the other side. After all, you enjoy walking through the woods and the bridge made this easier. Is your spouse more likely to say: "If that stinkin' bridge wasn't there, you'd be home more often!" or "You need to spend more time at home rather than out exploring!" The irrational voice would say the first choice. After all, they believe if the bridge didn't exist, the person would not be tempted to travel. They believe that people are ruled by their opportunities and not by their will, or at least that's how it seems. The more rational voice would say the second choice, because it is the person's passion that drove them to utilize the tool to achieve their means. If they didn't have wood, they would have used rope, is something this mindset may also believe. However, it is possible that there is a third mindset. A combination obviously that perhaps because the wood is available, they would utilize a bridge but if it wasn't available, they wouldn't have done it. This is the truly hard margin to judge because now we enter the eternally foggy realm of human intentions, a thickly paved road to hell some would say. The point here is this: the tool is not sentient whether it be a kitchen knife, an AK-47, a garden gnome, or a baseball bat. It requires human will and efficacy to utilize and it's outcome is entirely ruled by those factors. A gun in the hands of a professional sportsman is going to be extremely lethal. But give him a two by four and he may not be as effective as you'd think. People need to realize that just because in the movies, any character can pick up a gun and shoot someone in the head from a hundred yards away doesn't mean it's real. We've let the media dictate what we "know" about life's many aspects for too long now. When it enters a serious realm such as that of human psychology and criminology, we are making dangerous mistakes by judging reality through fantasy.