My problem is the morals have no ground. Child pornography causes definite harm to the child involve.You also totally sidestepped my question - you say that banning personal ownership of anything on moral grounds is wrong, yet I will assume that you were primarily thinking about gun ownership and that even you would draw the line somewhere. If morality is not a valid reason for banning ownership how do you hope to draw the line?
Ignoring our points and countering with a shedload of quotes garnered from a pro-gun propaganda* site isn't exactly building a strong argument for yourself
Owning a gun, and ONLY OWNING A GUN, does not. Shooting someone in self defense is more debatable. Many police officers go to therapy for years after shooting someone in justifiable self defense. Then there's Jelly Bryce (FBI), who went home and slept like a baby after killing two men who tried to kill him. He never killed anyone he didn't have to to save his own life, or someone else. It's a continuum. Some people have different morals.
That kind of morals, I can't argue against. But they CANNOT be used to argue against ownership. Let people own their crap, and let THEM decide what they'll do with them. If someone wants to run people over with their car, they'll go to jail. If someone wants to shoot people for no good reason, likewise. Cars are significantly more deadly than guns, really. But people can't accept that, because they like their precious cars.
Hit-and-run car accidents and vehicular homicide are not good reasons to ban car OWNERSHIP, only to regulate car USE. Like driving licenses and stuff. I'd have no problem with reasonable bars to gun ownership, but not ridiculous hoop-jumping like in many other countries.