If what you're trying to say is that it's easier to kill lots of people with guns than with a pair of scissors, then you're absolutely right.
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it?
Unless you'll suggest that a weapon has the potential to damage somebody's soul, the most potential a weapon has is to kill somebody.
How many somebodies in how short a time? Again, isn't that kind of the point? I don't see how the fact that you could, theoretically, beat someone to death with a boot represents an argument against placing checks on the availability of more effective means.
Again - if guns aren't a whole lot more effective at killing than boots, why were guns invented? That seems to be a point that you're glossing right over to maintain your utterly ridiculous equivalences.