We have been killing each other since the beginning of time, blame the person not the tool used to kill.
That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."
I'm glad that you mentioned driving and texting, because the real reason for not restricting or prohibiting guns is the same as the reason for not restricting or prohibiting cars, or cell phones--or for that matter, cigarettes.
That is to say: because, in the minds of the people who own and use and enjoy these items, and the people who depend on the manufacture and sale of these items for their livelihood, their utility outweighs the inevitable and predictable costs of allowing them. Everything else is just rationalization.
Mass cigarette smoking leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass lung cancer. Mass automobile ownership leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass auto accidents, injuries, and deaths. And the easy availability of guns leads, inevitably and predictably, to widespread gun violence.
The decision to tolerate all this collateral damage rests entirely on the calculation that our own convenience and pleasure and profit outweigh the risks to ourselves and (especially) to others. Other people are always acceptable losses.
In the case of personal automobiles, their utility is so obvious, and their appeal is so nearly universal, that almost nobody would think of trying to ban them, despite the mayhem they cause. Cigarettes, by contrast, have no utility, and their appeal has been declining for decades: the result has been a steady increase in restrictions on their sale and use. Guns fall in between the two extremes, which is why they're so controversial.