No, I'm certainly not interested in a general banning of guns. I guess I'm looking at it more like IR where I think there should be a line that gets drawn that potentially limits how much damage one person can do in a certain amount of time. Going back to the firecracker vs. nuclear weapon analogy, a firecracker could be used by someone to blind another and remove digits one at a time. In theory, someone could take out the vision and digits of whole city by systematic, individual firecracker attacks. The problem is accomplishing that is the amount of time it would take along with the willingness of future victims to not stop it. In reality, the perpetrator would never be able to blind a whole city because the "weapon" they've chosen can really only do a certain amount of damage per time. A nuclear weapon could do all that damage (and more) in a fraction of the time. I guess that is why I'm OK with people having firecrackers but not giving them a nuke.

To me, it isn't about stopping people from having guns or even stopping someone from killing another individual. The problems start with mass killings of people where certain weapons are clearly more easily used to kill large groups of people in a hurry.

As kind of an aside, I do find it odd that some of the biggest gun proponents in this country would be some of the people first to bomb Iran because they want a certain weapon.