If you're looking at a threat model for this, its exactly the same as a Zipgun and in fact it probably costs a heck of a lot more than a zipgun so its even less likely to be used. Zipguns have existed for over a century so its not like this is some huge threat.
This is only a problem if you believe guns are {evil, sentient, bombs} or something. The problem is always the wielder, never the tool, so if you account for that you will always be prepared for any type of weapon...
I agree with your main point that this is a no brainer. I also think that the "wielder" is part of the problem. However, I don't understand your point about "wielder vs tool". This is something i have heard a lot of pro-gun people say over and over again. However, that point only makes sense if guns are a general purpose tool (such as a 3d printer or a computer), but they are not. Guns are tools only used for killing. IMO, when it comes to civilian use, they are at best used to fulfill an antiquated hobby and at worst used to kill people.
Edit: back on main topic, if only mpaa and riaa would admit the same thing about their struggle against the bits.
Not true. Sport-shooting of various sorts is a very popular past-time. You have things like skeet shooting[1], ISSF shooting competitions[2], IPSC Practical Shooting competition[3], etc.
And some of the contexts in which they are "used to kill" are hardly negative: hunting for food (very commonplace in many areas) and self-defense come to mind.
No, a gun may not be "general purpose" in the same way a 3D printer is, but it certainly has no inherently malevolent intent.
In the US at least, guns are used about 2.25 million times a year in self-defense. Rather obviously, only a very tiny fraction of these incidents result in death, in fact, the vast majority don't even involve a gun being fired, e.g. the display of one with the obviously willingness to use it if pressed is sufficient. And legally, we and the police are not allowed to kill per se, only to stop (killing is reserved to the judicial system).
You've also left out the middle uses of rural areas, where guns are necessary tools to keep various wildlife, generally in the class of "varmints", in check, in part because we've killed off or driven off many predators in favor of keeping our children etc. safer. They're also used in a much more managed way to keep e.g. deer populations in check, that's win-win-win for all concerned (government has the private sector do it and pay for the privilege, the private individuals benefit, and the public e.g. has fewer deer to crash into, they are the most deadly animal in the US...).
Valid points, but even with the added value you mention its still debatable on if its worth the cost... I just don't buy into the whole "guns don't kill people" slogan because i don't see very many mass-stabbings...if we were all ninja, I might agree with it. However, this issue is complex. Way too many factors and not enough datapoints to know what direction to really go in,imo. We could take either side and cherry-pick facts and go round and round all day. I just hope violence overall continues its decline.
I'd fork the discussion at this point, there's the utilitarian debate on costs vs. benefits (although it's even more complicated that you may realize, you have to go all the way to figuring in the quarter billion disarmed people killed by their own governments in the previous century), then there's the "the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the natural right of self-defense" and the minor detail of degenerate case that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated Constitutional right and if you want to change any of this, you have to amend said Constitution first.
That is over simplistic and incorrect. They are used for many more things, but if thats your first conclusion I suspect you are unlikely to listen to any reasonable argument to the contrary. To use your example, this is like saying "BitTorrent is only used for piracy" when its clearly not the case.
Practicality? The US civilian sector alone manufactures 11-12 billion (sic) per year (and we get tasty leftovers from manufacturing for the military on their equipment at Lake City, plus there's imports), and that number will be going up somewhat as e.g. Remington expands their Arkansas plant. Then there's the problem that ammo, if stored in minimally good conditions (cool and dry, of course), lasts a very long time. A lot of WWII era ammo is still fine and functional, although disfavored because most of it uses corrosive primers.
This is recognized in the near total deregulation in the US of ammo after it leaves the manufacturer, you don't need any special license to sell it, although shipping of course requires proper labeling (an ORD-M sticker) and must be by ground.
Oh, yeah, the leftover brass of centerfire guns and brass and plastic hulls of shotgun ammo can generally be reloaded a number of times, that's completely unregulated beyond again the usual safety stuff, primers and smokeless powder are somewhat more dangerous when packaged in bulk vs. as part of finished rounds. And more on longevity: my father is still reloading shotgun shells using powder from Hercules (now Alliant) casks bought plus or minus WWII (!)....
If you're looking at a threat model for this, its exactly the same as a Zipgun and in fact it probably costs a heck of a lot more than a zipgun so its even less likely to be used. Zipguns have existed for over a century so its not like this is some huge threat.
This is only a problem if you believe guns are {evil, sentient, bombs} or something. The problem is always the wielder, never the tool, so if you account for that you will always be prepared for any type of weapon...