re: 1. The majority of the time, guns are not used at all. Most of the rest of the time they're used for legal, positive reasons, like protecting your bank or recreation. Guns, there's just no way to prevent or collect them all (no way that's consistent with the US Bill of Rights, even if you toss out the Second Amendment). You really don't need much machinery to make an improvised gun, and with a little more tools and expertise, one can manufacture an automatic weapon.

>just look at the data from the UK. Even the police are better off without guns.

I'm more afraid of harm from police than I am from criminals with guns.

>2. This might be true for guns, but who cares?

Meh, it's not a great point but a lot of people in the US care, even if you don't agree with them.

>3. In the age of tanks, machine guns, and grenades, consumer guns don't enable us to overthrow unjust governments as they did when the bill of rights was written.

Tanks are literally useless. As the wars in the Middle East have nicely demonstrated, they do not magically enable victory, especially against an entranched/integrated guerrilla enemy. This is true for all sorts of high-tech military weaponry/machinery.

>As such, they no longer play a role in protecting our civil rights.

I disagree with the premise of your argument, so I also disagree with this point.

>If anything, gun rights are frequently a talking point for Right-wing politicians who happily trample over all of our other civil liberties. As a political force, the pro-gun politics is actively harming our civil liberties.

I can agree with that. There are a lot of authoritarians/fascists/logically challenged people on the pro-gun side; and a lot of politicians who use divisive issues to agitate the more excitable parts of the electorate. They do it for abortion and LGBT/civil rights as well. It's not great, but also not an argument for/against gun rights.

>4. Looking at the data, I don't see how your can argue this.

I don't see how the US gov't can effectively collect all of the guns in the US without some pretty draconian/authoritarian measures of exactly the type that pro-2A folks oppose in principle, and that most Americans agree with.

>In the US guns are used more in suicide

I don't want a government to try to prevent me or anyone else from suicide by trying to nerf the environment.

> or commission of a crime than in self-defense. In the UK, near-universal bans on guns have lead to a drastic decrease in gun deaths.

I admit the numbers are hard to argue with, even factoring in the violent crimes committed with other weapons and against the unarmed. OTOH, I've noted a disturbing trend of the UK to ban or attempt to ban or regulate the sale of other items which may sometimes be used as a weapon, mainly pointy things like kitchen cutlery. That's certainly not something I would support.

As an analogy, note that the US has attempted to prevent the distribution of illegal amphetamines by restricting the sale of so-called precursor chemicals. It hasn't prevented the distribution of methamphetamine, but it has prevented the retail sale of drain cleaner, cold medicine, and other household chemicals/items. It's a moderate inconvenience for a lot of people and the only discernible effect it's had on drugs distribution is to decrease the quality/safety of illegal drugs (through criminals using inferior methods to produce them). Gun culture is so ingrained in the US that I feel we'd see the same sort of things happening with guns if the gov't attempted to ban them.