I have a little experiment I'd like you to try.
You and a friend of mine are going to come to my backyard. You two are going to stand ten yards apart. Then, when I give the signal, he is going to point his hand in the shape of a gun. He is going to point his hand at you and by the mere act of pointing at you, try to kill you. He will not be allowed to send any physical object of any sort in your general direction, nor will he be permitted any sort of explosives with area-of-effect damage or anything else that could physically harm you. His only weapon will be his bare hand, which will not be allowed to come anywhere near you. You will not be allowed to move or hide.
In part two of this experiment, everything will be done exactly as before, with one single change: He will be given a loaded .45, and he will be allowed to shoot at you. You will not be given body armor, a firearm, or any other way to defend yourself. Again, you will not be allowed to move or hide.
If you truly and sincerely believe that "guns don't kill people," then you should have no problem participating in this experiment.
I am willing to have an honest debate with someone whose views on gun control differs from mine. What I am NOT willing to do is to sit there and listen to drivel that consists not just of bad judgment but flat-out lies. And one of the biggest lies put forth by the Far Right regarding guns is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Not only is this grammatically incorrect--there should be a semicolon in place of the comma--it is logically incorrect. It should read, "People use implements, usually guns, to kill." It's not just the guns, but it's not just the people, either. It's a hell of a lot harder to kill someone just by pointing your finger at that person.
Now, to be fair, one could argue that if it were the person that were the variable, and not the presence of a gun, this too would make a difference. I.e., giving a rational, minimal-risk person a gun vs. giving an insane, high-risk person a gun makes a huge difference, and could well be the difference between having the gun be fired or not. Granted. To which I respond, which kills people, guns or people, the correct answer is: They both do, in tandem. Without the implement, killing will not happen. Without a crazy person behind that implement, killing will not happen. It's like a fire: A fire needs heat, oxygen, and fuel to start and to keep going. Take just one of these away and the fire will go out. It's incorrect to say that "fuel alone causes fires" or "sparks alone cause fires," because you need all the components in the same place and the same time, with the right conditions present. The same it is with guns: If a person no longer makes a decision to kill, OR if he is denied the physical means by which to kill, then the killing will no longer take place. It's a lot harder to kill someone with your bare hands, and it's a lot easier to evade a knife than a gun.