Oh come on, pull your head out of the sand. Guns are a complicated issue, and pretending it's this simple makes you sound like a caricature of an American conservative.
Is it somehow "conservative" to say that I've never really understood why that should be? One person, who wishes badly enough to kill another, will invariably find some tool to use in the attempt, and firearms are far from the only tools which can be used to inflict lethal injury on a human being. There is no more inherent controversy in this statement than in the statement that, should you find yourself with a nail to drive and no hammer with which to do so, you'll find some other expedient and drive your nail with it -- perhaps you'll hit it with a crowbar, or half a brick, or so forth.
Using a hammer is the easiest way to drive a nail, but the variety of means by which to do so is, if not necessarily infinite, then certainly bounded only by the limits of human ingenuity. If you wish nails not to be driven, why then does it make sense to ban hammers, rather than to place nail-driving beyond the pale of law -- and then enforce that law, as firmly as you find necessary to discourage whatever recalcitrance you encounter on the part of inveterate carpenters?
Anyway, it's freakin obvious how much easier it is to pull a trigger with only a little hesitation than to get a brick out and beat somebody to death. I don't understand how you don't see that. It's like you've already made your decision and no matter what anyone says, you're 100% confident you can explain it away before you even see it.
It's obvious enough that killing someone with a firearm is easier than doing likewise with a brick. For a civilized, i.e. domesticated, human, acting upon the urge to kill at all is harder than either; a large part of what we call "civilization" consists in overcoming our murderous heritage. (Or did you think we humans have ended up our entire planet's uncontested apex predator, so much so that many of us never even have to hunt, because we're just so nice?)
And have you considered the possibility that, once you've clobbered somebody in the head with a brick the first time, your perspective on the matter might change? God forfend I should ever find myself in such a position! But I think it reasonable to imagine that, once there, it might seem at least as sensible to keep going as to stop. "Escalation of commitment," I think it's called.