guns are not used for protection - a bulletproof vest is used for protection. if someone pulls a gun on you and you pull a gun on them, someone's more than likely going to get shot. a gun is always offensive - it has only one purpose, and that's to kill. if we're concerned about protection, how about making bulletproof vests easier to obtain? it's not like having a gun is magic "don't shoot me" object. if a person's going to shoot up a temple or a theater and you pull out a gun, they're not going to give a shit.
the hunting argument works for non-automatic rifles. it doesn't work for semi-automatic weapons or handguns, both of which can be obtained legally in the us and have little advantage while hunting.
the collecting argument is not really much of an argument. i don't see an issue with collecting older, barely usable guns; collecting modern guns that can be used in a crime of passion would kind of be like letting people collect biochemical weapons - you are collecting on object that's only purpose is to kill or seriously injure someone or something else.
now, i mentioned crimes of passion in the previous paragraph. most murders are crimes of passion. do you think that a person is going to be as likely to try to shoot somebody if it will be expensive and difficult to obtain a gun? if they already have a gun or guns are easier to obtain, then they'd probably go for it.
now, you could take this argument to a logical (but stupid) extreme, like "matches kill people too!" but matches are also used for cooking. i just used some matches for cooking the other day. what about knives? nope, also used for cooking. chainsaws? cutting down trees, cutting wood. guns? well, you could say "hunting", but that's still killing something. guns have zero non-violent uses. none.
also, i'm going to put this out here: most people don't want guns. if guns were illegal, i doubt most people would make an attempt to get any, in a similar way to drugs.
