Probably the weakest response (idiotic, you could say) to an analogy is to make an issue of an unrelated difference between the things in the analogy.
For example, say you argue that limiting banks from mixing their banking and investing functions, which liberals advocate to prevent conflicts of interest that can hurt voth types of customers, is wrong because the government has no business telling a private business what they can do. I then say, 'so the government has no business telling big pharma whether a drug is safe to sell, either?'
You could respond, 'uses of money and drug safety are not the same. You don't swallow money, but you tak pills.'
Now, I pointed out a relevant point between the items - the issue of government regulation of business. You pointed out an irrelevant difference.
I dare say you would add it's idiotic to compare money to drugs.
To make it even clearer, a second example. You are with a friend and their 8 year old, and at McDonalds,the child orders 8 applie pies as their meal. You ask the friend why they don't require a less unhealthy pick, and the friend says they don't think the child should be dictated to, and should get what they want. You ask if that logic means they should decide whether to do anything else, too, like take drugs. The friend says, 'applie pies and crack cocaine are not the same thing, that's idiotic'.
Now you asked the relevant question, about the logic they used that children should not be required to do some things. The friend avoided the relevant question about their own logic, by pointing out an irrelevant difference in your analogy. They could make the case why their logic makes sense with apple pies and not crack cocaine, but they didn't make the case, they avoided the issue you were raising with their logic.
In the analogy under discussion, I pointed out the relevant issue, the issue of whether the government limiting access to more dangerous weapons is addressed by 'don't limit the access to have them, but make the killing with them illegal'. Now, admittedly, the extra danger posed by a 30-round clip over a 10-round clip is far less than a nuclear weapon. But the issue is the same, when the ONLY argument for keeping the 30-round clip presented was 'keep it legal to have, but not to use to kill'.
That's a very inadequate argument - clearly, the issue there is whether the person who is going to kill, will have access to 10 or 30 round clips in their semi-automatic gun.
You have not provided any real argument why the 30 should remain legal - and to expose the weakness of your argument I applied its logic to nuclear weapons. Clearly the logic says, the only issue with making more deadly weapons available is that their being more deadly - whether they can kill 1 to 20 more people (per clip), or thousands more, it's the same logic - is no reason to ban them, all that's needed is to make the misuse illegal.
The nuclear weapon is to expose the weakness of the argument, and say how the 'make it illegal' is inadequate as an argument. If you say 'we should not just make the misuse of nuclear weapon illegal, but should restrict access', you are asked why the same doesn't apply to the smaller number of added danger from the 30-person clip.
But you miss the point, not addressing the relevant point about when the more dangerous weapon becomes too much more dangerous versus 'legitimate' need.
Instead you make an irrelevant point about the differences between the two items in the analogy.
The only one who has any business expressing disappointment here is me.
But since you are not too good with analogies, the point can be made more directly:
Clearly, making the misuse of firearms to kill illegaly is not enough to prevent it in some cases; and once the person will misuse a 10-clip to do it, they can misuse a 30-clip too.
The only issue there is they can kill more. The question is, while access to some firearms is a right, where is the line drawn where more deadly arms are so much only more deadly for misuse, rather than having a 'legitimate' use, for general public access, that the public should be protected from killers having them legally available?
I could list items from 30-slip magazines to assault rifles to machine guns to bazookas and on up to nuclear weapons, but the point is the same for any example.
Simply saying 'make the killing illegal' is clearly not an answer, since that's ineffective for both the 10 clip and 30 clip - not a reason to make the 30 clip available.
You needed this spelled out. You got it wrong saying what the point of the analogy was. You got insulting to make the point that was wrong. That's not good.
The response 'make the 30-round clip legal and its misues illegal' is an inadequate response. You have not shown you understand that or provided any argument for it.
The topic could raise issues of how much killing power is appropriate. Like any laws picking a point, it can be a gray area why not higher or lower, but, say, 'more than 10 rounds in a clip' might be one place to draw the line. A flimsy bit of bad logic is not an answer to the issue. The nuclear weapons application of the bad logic exposed its weakness clearly without the longer spelling it out. You did not answer the issue, but dodged it.