I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.
The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.
You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?
If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?