See you are just using circular logic. I say it is not easier. I give examples.
You say "If it was easier to kill it via other means why would all these mass shooters choose the harder way via guns?"
This is circular logic, you are just referencing your own unbased conclusion as the source for your logic.
My point is even if you waved a magic wand to make all the guns go poof, those shootings would magically transform into arsons, stabbings, bombings, etc. Murders don't happen because of inanimate objects. They happen because of intent. Furthermore those inanimate objects help protect people from all of this, so it is not as simple as "oh lets just get rid of that and the problems will be gone!"
Ok, so which is it - are you saying it's easier to kill with a gun than e.g. via arson or not? Getting really tangled up in your own arguments there.
There is no magic transformation like you're implying. Harder to kill means fewer deaths. Most of those firearms deaths are not hardened assassins killing at any cost. Domestic disputes, drunken fights, petty crime, accidents, suicide attempts, etc wouldn't be nearly as deadly without guns and most sane countries have figured that out a long time ago.
Am I? Seems to me you are the one tangled in your own argument... like I just said.... but hey maybe if you accuse me of the same thing you are guilty of no one will notice you have no argument.