Do you seriously deny that guns are often used (or I should say misused) to kill the innocent?
Of course I don't. What is your point?
While you mull over your answer, let me state my position in the creationsism-vs.-evolution bickering that so often erupts here. I say, "a plague on both your houses."
On the one side are the proponents of young-earth "creationism." As I said before, creationism is both bad theology and bad science: bad theology because it insists on a dubious interpretation of scripture; and bad science because—well, I am not sure that creationists engage in science at all.
On the other side, there are plenty of self-styled scientists who like to wave a red flag in the face of religious believers. Some in this camp may be competent scientists in their own fields of specialization; however, they slip too easily into scientism when they venture outside their areas of expertise.
What bothers me about the latter group is that they do not police themselves. They circle the wagons against the "attacks on science" by the creationists, whom they rightly accuse of misusing science. But they do not criticize those within their own ranks who are equally guilty of misusing science. In particular, they will not tell the militant atheists to stop pretending that science supports their religious/philosophical position.
In this context, the arguments on this thread over the religious beliefs of Einstein are telling. One side wants to prove that one can be both a believer and a great scientist. The other side apparently wants to prove the opposite. Both sides seem to believe that the weight of Einstein's reputation will strengthen their argument. Both are wrong.
Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist, so his opinions on evolution is probably not well informed. Moreover, since science does not deal with religious questions, Einstein's opinions on God carry no more weight than anyone else's.