Are you are lawyer, by any chance, BC?
No. I'm stating facts.
When somebody says
"X performs Y", and, to present the unemotional example of "shovels Dig". It implies that the subject does this on it's own with absolutely no help.
However, I don't recall hearing about Shovels digging holes on their own.
In some locations, it is illegal to dig without first getting a survey done, because there is a known underground electrical, telephone, or other utility cable rather close to the surface. Not following this procedure results in a fine, and responsibility for any resulting service outage. However, I again cannot recall any particular instance where the shovel, or trowel that the person was using was held responsible for the actions of the person using said device. A shovel or other tool will indeed make digging said hole easier, but it hardly makes it possible; you can dig with your bare hands if necessary, but they have no cognition and thus no responsibility. Saying that any inanimate object is "responsible" for something is a gross personification of said device, and tries to absolves the ills of humanity onto a inanimate scapegoat. If a water pump fails in a nuclear reactor, the pump isn't held responsible at the inquisition- the lazy engineer who installed it is, or the company's disregard for safety.
The controversial nature of firearms however is probably rooted in the notion that they are, in effect, designed specifically to kill and injure. However, it doesn't follow logically that if they suddenly disappeared, or were removed in some other way, suddenly we'd be living in a pleasant utopia. Regardless of what laws and restrictions are enforced, people will find ways to kill and injure each other, and unless the plan is to make everybody a toothless torso that is never going to change.
My point is that in said cases, the device is not "responsible". the person is. Otherwise I could say that we should hold computers responsible for hacking. We don't; it's the people doing that hacking that are fined and/or sent to prison. I've always been surprised how much illogic the introduction of mortality brings to any debate, even when otherwise perfectly crafted analogies to said mortal situation make the express or implied suggestions ridiculous.
