Replace "encryption" with any of cars, knives, food, rat poison, drain cleaner, plastic wrap, dogs, lasers, urine, syringes, air, water, concrete, VCRs ... to see why this is an inconsequential point.
Yeah I agree, I just think there's something a bit more visceral about shooting someone with a gun (or using any other physical weapon that shoots or cuts or stabs) rather than using encryption to set up a scenario that would cause harm in some way indirectly from the perpetrator.
I would think this is why there are those restrictions on guns that seem pretty weird when you talk about applying the same rules to encryption.
That's the whole reason politicians talk about controlling it, e.g. with France.
And queue the arguments: it's just a tool, it's inevitable, etc.
---
Now that I think more about it, one difference is that a gun is more useful for survival, hunting, etc. A more "basic" need in a sense.