The inanimate object argument is the weakest of all anti-gun control arguments there are. "You don't blame the car when it hits someone...." You are right, but cars have a purpose that is beyond killing things. Guns are made for the sole purpose of shooting things. You can argue that some are to kill animals that are overpopulated. Some are to shoot at a range.
The inanimate object though is created to shoot at thing. The biggest difference between a gun and a spoon is that there is a primarily positive use for a spoon. No such use exists for a gun except for the pleasure it brings the shooter.
I would even argue that a hatchet (which can be used quite easily to kill) has a primarily positive use which is to cut wood. A knife? Cut food. Please tell me what the purpose or use of a gun is outside of shooting something? And then explain to me that if it is for "sport" or "enjoyment", why you shouldn't be regulated like many other things that people do for "sport" or "enjoyment".... like walk around downtown naked and have sex in public
My issue is that weak arguments like this continue to stop the reasonable regulations that need to be put in place. Many republicans understand this needs to happen. Unfortunately there is the Hannity/Limbaugh/Tea Party crowd that is either too partisan, or too uneducated to understand the need.