> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things.
If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.
What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? That's hurting, killing, and threatening. Goals can be eating, revenge, crime deterrence, whatever. But the primary use of a weapon always did come from its ability to harm and kill.
I bet most pro-gun Americans would agree with me. They want a weapon to defend themselves. How? By threatening to hurt or kill, of course. They're not going to propose a foam sword contest to someone they deem dangerous to their property, their lives, or their families.
Recreational use? It sure counts. But if we suddenly ban weapons in the US, there won't be riots over a hobby. It will be over the ability to threaten with death when you need it for self defence.
My point is, once you try to determine the primary uses of certain things, you come to the conclusion that certain popular items are primarily useless and serve mainly to keep emergency rooms in business.
If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.