It's a pretty popular idea that tools are completely neutral and all the will to use them rests in our heads (our wills). But anyone with a smartphone has already experienced the almost compulsive urge to reach for their phone, check it, hold it. (Indeed, surveys done by companies like Nokia find that the #1 thing people do with their phones is fondle them. Seriously.) The point is that tools become an extension of our bodies--we become habituated to having them, using them, expanding our range of options. We choose to live places based on our cars as our imaginative range of “where-I-can-go” becomes based on our walking-extender, our car.
One unexpected benefit of this way of seeing things is that it relieves some of the guilt-or-innocence burden on cops. Yes, there are killer-cops out there--cops who enjoy killing with guns, who are “trigger-happy.” I find it hard to accept that is a high percentage, though. What we can understand if we change our view of the line between tools and human choice is that there is a dynamic between “cop” and “gun” that is not simplistically “up to” the cop. Yes, the British police are admirable for not firing their guns or killing people as often as American police; but a bunch of that credit needs to go to the culture in Britain, not to a bunch of super-willpowers dressed up in bobby uniforms. The British just understand tools better than Americans do.