In this life, some things are absolute. Some things are relative. Wisdom is knowing which are which.Killing people is never 'always wrong'. It usually goes against our instincts as a general principal we dislike the entire subject (whilst being weirdly fascinated by it in horror novels/films and murder/forensic mysteries).However we have been killing each other ever since we existed. Hence to say that 'killing is unnatural' is idiocy. Doesn't fit the facts.That doesn't mean indiscriminate violence is to be approved of. But it does mean that having a absolutist morality about murder is absurd. There are clearly many situations in which killing people is entirely appropriate. I didn't shed many tears which Osama Bin Laden died because his plot to kill 3000 odd people who were regular civilians was wrong. So fuck that guy.On the other hand, if Osama Bin Laden killed 3000 soldiers, then that is not wrong in the same way. Soldiers have signed up for that risk. They know they are targets of killers and are prepared for it. In some sense, this is fair. I'm not advocating killing soldiers here, I don't like war because it frequently disrupts social and economic progress for the worse. I'm saying playing the game by the rules is completely different to mass indiscriminate slaughter of civilians for their nationality, ethnicity, belief system etc.You takes your ticket and you takes your chances. You shouldn't hurt 3rd parties to weaken the enemy because that is cowardly. It's a basic principal of justice i.e. one should not punish the son for the sins of his father.Killing the enemy on the other hand, is always legitimate when they are seeking your demise.So, in response to the Gun Question. It depends.