No worries, I do always appreciate advocacy for the devil.

I say that it is unfortunate that they feel it must be done, and they are contributing to the gun problem in the US. It is for the greater good that nobody have a handgun in cities.

Thinking there are "bad guys and good guys", or maintaining an "us vs them" mentality, does not represent reality, and will never solve the issue. It is a self-perpetuating system where people feel they need a gun to protect themselves from others who have guns. But most of the people you are protecting yourself against are probably also "good guys" in their view who also just wanted protection.

And that's the generous take; many others just like the power a gun offers, which is obviously a quality that humanity should out grow.

As for your second point, I suppose rational is the wrong word. But to me it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Bear spray may come in handy, but probably not. However, it's potential uselessness costs nothing more than its weight, and in the worst case, it costs someone some misery for some short time. Guns, on he other hand, can come at an enormous cost of something goes wrong (one or more people die). Sure you probably won't kill anyone, but you probably will also not need the gun for any reason, just like the bear spray. And, arguably, bear spray will probably protect you against anything that a gun might. So the cost-benefit lens, to me, seems to make the choice obvious.