Sorry to nitpick, but I strongly disapprove of this sentence because it hides the fact that guns are weapons, and generally speaking most "other recreational tools" are not.
Of course guns are dangerous and deadly, they're guns. If other recreational tools were as readily dangerous and deadly as guns, access to their usage would be a lot more restricted.
Which also implies the "when misused" description is deceptive. What are guns designed to do? Like, when looking at their affordances[0], what was a gun originally made to do? SMBC had a nice take on it[1].
Of course it is true that we're not supposed to kill people, but "misused" here expands to "someone used a thing explicitly designed to be good at killing people, and in the process got someone killed, which means they misused it". Depending on intent that is perhaps "morally" correct, but otherwise it shifts attention away from the part where guns being dangerous and deadly is inherent to what makes them guns.
And don't get me wrong, I fully agree with the rest of what you're saying. I totally understand when people have a fascination for weapons and agree there should be space for passionate, responsible enthusiasts. But that's exactly why I'm a bit hung up on this: to me, a responsible enthusiast would never undersell how dangerous guns are, and part of the cause of a messed up gun culture is not respecting that danger.