Sound logic?

The argument has a fair point, but are there any weaknesses or fallacies involved?

P1: Guns can allow for more serious harm to be done, like killing higher amounts of people easier and faster

P2: Other things can also allow for damage to take place but not as much as guns can

C: Therefore, guns should be banned, or at least limit their access to the public

This is a weak argument at best. Not sound nor valid.

"Guns can allow for more serious harm to be done," More serious than what? Without this, we cannot have a true premise, thus the argument can't be valid.

"Other things can also allow for damage to take place but not as much as guns can." Well, nuclear weapons are some things that can do more damage than guns, so this is a false premise as it is written.

The argument is missing (to be sound) what would point out another flaw... the premise that states "that which can be used to cause serious harm should be banned." With this, one can use a reductio to provide many examples where this premise is false (cars, buses, trains, planes).

A better argument that uses the gist of this would be as follows:

P1. Guns are capable of being used to kill many people in a short period of time.

P2. Every other thing that can be used to kill as many people in that short of a time period are either banned or highly regulated.

C. Therefore, to be consistent with our laws, guns should be banned or highly regulated with regulations consistent with the level of harm possible.

I am guessing at P2 - it seems true, but there may be some examples that prove it false (it would also depend on how one defines "highly regulated." Is a pilot's license "highly regulated"?).