Either you misunderstand the point of the comparison or you're purposely misrepresenting it. We are not implying that you are against guns. That, in fact, is our point. The argument that you are using can be used almost verbatim to justify hardline gun restrictions. That you can see the flaw in the argument when it is used to regulate something you approve of, but not when used to regulate something you oppose, is laughable.
Except the founders saw that bluff and raised it one. That is why they gave guns their very own special 2nd ammendment. To forstall such activity, and why your arguement is specious. Gun(ownership) is specifically and specially protected, porn isn't. The arguements against one, don't apply to the other.
Guns and kiddie porn are both tools. Guns have many and varied uses from sports, sustenance and self defense. MISUSE of a gun may indeed harm a child, but it is not the intended purpose and use of a gun.
Child porn has only two purposes; one is the self validation of a mental illness obsessed with a criminal act (sex with children) and the second is the intentional harming of a child through solicitaion of a similar act. Neither are beneficial socially or to the individual child or adult user, but are demonstrably harmful.
Guns and porn arguments are not even in the same intellectual ball park.