B-bruce- do you really, really not see the the gross fallacy in that assertion?
You have assumed an unstated premise..(or maybe more than one)..such as, that starting a fire has the same societal value as firing a gun, or that 'lighters have little intrinsic value beyond committing arson', or that training in the use of lighters would help prevent arson....etc...etc..
You have tried to draw a metaphor which simply does not work...you are comparing non-relevant cases.
   I could make similar comparisons for ball-peen hammers, ball-point pens, bows, motorcycles, phonographs, asprin and whiskey...and you'd see the obvious flaws in those.
Guns ARE a special case...other than hunting, they are needed primarily to injure, kill or threaten other with death or injury....and a case case be made that they are not 'really' needed for hunting any longer.

But I KNOW that there are valid reasons, given the circumstances of modern society, for 'some' humans to have 'some' guns, for 'some' purposes....and I will NOT be dissuaded from my claims that society would be better off if all those 'somes' were severely limited. You seldom address that point, preferring to parse obscure points and correct little facts about law or details of gun construction which have little bearing on my basic assertions.