Sure, maybe I can use a fork as a weapon, but I can't use a handgun to eat a meal. There's a huge difference between can and is.
Those who argue that common implements can be used as a weapon, and are therefore in the same category as weapons designed exclusively for destructive intent, are making irrelevant comparisons. To reason that a fork and a handgun have some sort of equivalency based upon the word "can", is meaningless.
What we're really talking about here are semantics and logic. That analogy has no basis in logic and the disjoint semantics don't add much weight to the argument either.
Words can be weaponized too, and ideas are ultimately more powerful than any weapon, handheld or otherwise. A better approach might be to ban the spread of all ideas. We'd be much safer that way. Ideas can be very dangerous.
Now get off the web, shut up and drink your beer.