>This discussion would be much easier if you responded to my points directly

I can't because you're talking nonsense.

You are essentially saying that guns commit murder, not the user who shot the gun. You are saying that the tool carries intent and purpose, not the user. It's ridiculous, faulty logic and I cannot respond to that other than to point out it's quackery.

> I can't because you're talking nonsense.

You can't, because your argument at this point doesn't pertain at all to my argument.

> You are essentially saying that guns commit murder, not the user who shot the gun.

I am explicitly, literally saying that it's not, referring to that exact example, which you'd know if you'd actually taken what I've written into account when writing your response.

> You are saying that the tool carries intent and purpose, not the user.

Again, I am not, but please go ahead and point out where you believe I am.

> It's ridiculous, faulty logic and I cannot respond to that other than to point out it's quackery.

That sounds like a you problem. I have no problems responding directly to your points despite of your failure to address my argument at all, to point that fact out if nothing else. This is one of the perks of intellectual honesty: I don't have to pretend that I can't make sense of what you are saying to argue for my point.