My bro, I fully respect a man's right to own arms, be it for hunting or defense of self or property. Along with that respect, however, comes the expectation that the gun owner is responsible enough socially and morally to not be a danger to both himself and society. Its akin to owning a driving license and a car, if you examine the issue to arms ownership.
Like you mentioned, a lot of everyday items can be "converted" to weapons. Kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, sulphuric acid,steam irons, the list goes on. A gun is more explicit and deliberate in its intention as a weapon, but in my opinion, a man armed with a chainsaw going around massacring a town is no less brutal than a man doing it with a gun. Ditto for a man doing it with a baseball bat spiked with 7inch rusty nails coated with arsenic at the end. In all 3 scenarios, the common problem is the intention of the man. If someone wants to murder someone else, not having a gun is not going to deter him much. It would just affect the method of killing and perhaps the extent of damage he could do.before he could be stopped.
Banning guns does not solve the root of the problem of murderous intent, it would merely make would-be murderers think more creatively about how to go about their gruesome tasks,
Money, guns, religion, none of these are bad in itself, but its the way they are used by certain trouble-makers that creates tragedies and deeply fissured social issues.
A man with 10 guns in his house, with no intention to use them to cause injury, is far less dangerous than a man with a rock who wants nothing more than to brain his neighbor and everyone else he comes across.
Ultimately, the real problem is knowing which is which.