I find it best to turn the argument around to ask, why do governments want to ban guns?

Then give examples of what happened when they did that.

People respond to real-life, real-world examples. Keep it simple.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/01/nyt-trumps-support-national-reciprocity-threat-public-safety/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Agree here.

Matthew 7:6

Feel free to add your own thoughts on which gun rights arguments you think are flawed.

#1 Guns save lives.
The reason this argument should be avoided is not because it is false, rather this argument should be avoided because it sets a path of logical reasoning which can be used for gun control. If we are intellectually honest and make the argument that guns save lives we must also therefore admit that guns take lives as well. You cannot have one without the other. If we are going to make the argument that people kill people we must admit as well that people save people, not guns. A gun cannot be an inanimate tool for one argument and a righteous entity in the next.

Guns are an inanimate tool which is correct. However that tool may allow the user to accomplish a certain goal, or to accomplish a task in an efficient, expedient or judicious manner that they may not otherwise be able to do so without the use of the tool.  I could build a house without a hammer, saw, etc, but it wouldn't be easy, maybe not even possible for some people.

Consider disparity of force situations, ie elderly lady using a firearm to defend herself against home invasion, etc..  Without the tool her decision of self defense may never be successful. So indeed the tool is a key part in the equation.

Part of that life saving process may also include the taking of life.  We also agree that in use of deadly force, taking a life may be necessary and justified.  Therefore it can be effectively argued that Guns do indeed save lives because without the tool in many instances decisions without successful outcomes are futile or sometimes not even possible therefore it was the tool or inanimate object that made things possible.

#2  Criminals don’t follow laws.
This argument has two problems. For starters it is true by definition and this is true whether it is a gun law, a tax law, or a traffic law. If no one broke laws there would be no purpose for the law. If there were no laws then there would be no law breakers. It also assumes that people just already are or are not criminals. Furthermore, someone isn’t criminal until they actually commit a crime, therefore a legal gun owner is a law abider until they commit a crime with a gun.

The second fallacy is that it assumes all law breakers to be equal. It equates someone who broke the speed limit to someone who would commit armed robbery. If we are to make the argument that criminals don’t follow the laws then we must therefore conclude that anyone who broke any law is likely to break every law. Case in point, I speed sometimes but I don’t go around committing violent crimes. So obviously some criminals will follow some laws. People have been denied applications to purchase firearms because of a criminal history. That in itself shows that some criminals will follow some laws, otherwise they wouldn’t bother following the laws requiring them to apply for a permit.

We should not incorrectly assume that the person is saying that criminals don't follow laws is meant to be a blanket or literal statement.  I am quite sure that those individuals who chose to commit violent crimes would do so despite any laws.  The idea being that more laws would most likely just be more of a infringement on people who follow laws.  Also creating more laws is meaningless if they give those laws the same attention that is currently given to the existing laws. 

It seems obvious in my mind that they are suggesting the more rational course of action where we should focus our attention, resources and efforts in swift and strict prosecution of the laws that already exist.  It is such a political dog and pony show for politicians to come up with new bills.  They are just playing to their constituents giving the appearance of doing something, when they are not.

#3 Banning guns won’t stop mass killers
Again, this argument is essentially true but it glazes over the fact that some guns are more effective at killing people quickly than others. So a ban on certain types of guns would not stop mass shootings but it would likely reduce the number of casualties.

I disagree that we can draw a conclusion that "it would likely reduce the number of casualties".  I think even if we waved our magic wand and made all guns disappear, demented people are still smart and would utilize other means to commit mass killings.  There are many many better ways to induce mass casualty other than a firearm.  A firearm is actually far less effective than many other options.  The firearm is just a simple glorified method.

#4 If civilians were allowed to be armed the shooter would have been stopped.
The problem here is that it relies on a chance that there is an armed civilian in the area at the time. Indeed, if there is an armed civilian they have a decent chance at stopping a criminal but there is no guarantee that if CCW were legal that an armed civilian would be there. Of course CCW is good because it it at least means there is a chance there is an armed good samaritan to stop the bad guy but realistically not 100% of people would carry if legal.

I don't generally hear people say it in the terms you state, but rather that "An armed civilian being present could greatly reduce casualty or even prevent it." But in your stance you are using a glass half empty, rather than half full approach to this argument.  IF there was a civilian present with a CCW there are greater chances of success at stopping an event.  But if there was no chance of CCW that would mean there is NO chance of this being even a possibility.

#5 Gun free zones are the problem
Of course having a sign up that an area is a gun free zone will do nothing to stop someone who is premeditated at committing a crime, but taking the sign down is no guarantee that the criminal will be deterred. If it were the case that criminals only ever attacked gun free zones then maybe the argument would hold water, but this isn’t the case. Schools are a common target for active shooters because you have a lot of easy targets in a confined area, not because someone posted a “gun free zone” sign. Even if guns were allowed on campus it would still be a desirable target because of the population breakdown, few adults (who might be armed) and a lot of children (who are most likely not armed.) Case in point, Columbine had an armed officer who was stationed at the school but that didn’t deter the shooters. Gun free zones are dumb but I haven’t found any evidence to suggest that not having them would save lives.

Again you are using a glass half empty approach.  First only those who follow rules may opt to follow "gun free zones" to begin with.  So if we understand that CCW at least gives better odds, then having gun free zones would conversely negate any odds of a CCW intervening because they followed the rules. 

It is also dishonest to say or elude to the fact that those psychos who look for targets to attack, may not specifically look for soft targets to hit.  A crowded place that advertises "Gun Free Zone" is a huge advertisement to the mentally deranged who want to commit this acts.

Columbine is not a fair assessment as the school and classmates were a specific target that Harris and Klebold wanted to hit despite any challenge that they had to face.

#6 Criminals will find a way to get guns anyway.
This one is contingent on what type of gun control we are talking about. If we are referring to limits on certain types of guns and who can own them then yeah, criminals will find a way to get them anyway. Maybe a little harder to get but if they want one then they can still get one. But if the type of gun control being proposed is an outright ban on all firearms then well this argument loses steam. If guns are no longer made or sold in the USA and all firearms were confiscated then it would be much harder to come by a gun and it would be much more expensive. Reason being that you couldn’t just get one by having someone else buy it for you or notby stealing one. It would require people to actually manufacture illegal firearms. Of course there are people with the knowhow so guns would never be completely eliminated but they would be much more difficult and expensive to get.

A few issues with this one, the fires being the 2nd Amendment.  Even if we look at a hypothetical ban, it is so statistically and physically impossible to round up ALL guns in the United States it isn't even funny.  The Australian argument won't hold water either as this isn't Australia and second there are far more guns in existence in this country that we can possibly track or account for. 

Even if we took Hawaii as a small mirco example there are maybe 1 million or so registered firearms.  Estimates range from a reality of up to 3 million and these are only estimates.  Now if Hawaii had an outright ban and lets say that only 1% refused to turn in the weapons, how many guns and owners is that?  The HPD would have to get search warrants for, make arrests and confiscate weapons.  Now what would the courts do with so many cases?  How many officers would it take to do it, over how long of a period of time?  Now how do you account for all the firearms missed that were not registered?  Now lets times that by 50 states. 

Gun bans and confiscation is a pipe dream, probably a bloody one.  Unless if you had a magic wand, there will always be guns and criminals will always get them.  Because anyone who has one, would indeed be a criminal.  Do you know of anyone with a magic wand?

Can I get cliff notes?

Never respond to a troll posting strawman arguments.

How easy it is for you to make an insult yet you seem to have difficulty debating (or understanding) the topic. "troll" is your equivalent of the race card. Make the allegation and believe you don't have to defend your position. This is a serious topic, if you believe I am wrong, explain why. If not, don't bother responding.

Sorry moron, buy let me explain something to you: you don't get to make the rules nor have the power to make other people do what you demand they do. I'll respond if and how I want to, and if you don't like it go cry your liberal tears. If the moderators don't like, they can censor it and/or delete it. You fit right in with the ARE A  libtard progressives who didn't get their YOUR way in the presidential election and now demand that people, including electoral college electors meet their demands. Yeah, I have difficulty understanding/debating the topic, because you are so smart and have such a regal mastery of critical thinking skills, as evidenced by this and many of your other posts. It would take me two hours DAYS to point out the line by line errors of your "thinking" and "arguments". But to what end? I assume that most people see the obvious flaws in your E"thinking" and "reasoning" and thus would not benefit from reading such a rebuttal. For those people who can't see the obvious absurdity of what you've written YOU'RE DOING, there would be no point in writing for them since they have no critical thinking skills that would allow them to make a judgment on the merits of either case.

Now here's what I'm telling you to do: whatever you want. Write. Don't write. Whatever. If I thought I could effectively order you to not be stupid, I would, but...

Sorry moron, buy let me explain something to you: you don't get to make the rules nor have the power to make other people do what you demand they do. I'll respond if and how I want to, and if you don't like it go cry your liberal tears. If the moderators don't like, they can censor it and/or delete it. You fit right in with the libtard progressives who didn't get their way in the presidential election and now demand that people, including electoral college electors meet their demands. Yeah, I have difficulty understanding/debating the topic, because you are so smart and have such a regal mastery of critical thinking skills, as evidenced by this and many of your other posts. It would take me two hours to point out the line by line errors of your "thinking" and "arguments". But to what end? I assume that most people see the obvious flaws in your "thinking" and "reasoning" and thus would not benefit from reading such a rebuttal. For those people who can't see the obvious absurdity of what you've written, there would be no point in writing for them since they have no critical thinking skills that would allow them to make a judgment on the merits of either case.

Now here's what I'm telling you to do: whatever you want. Write. Don't write. Whatever. If I thought I could effectively order you to not be stupid, I would, but...

You have the freedom to write whatever you want to write, I am not trying to censor you.

If not, don't bother responding.