I think too often gun-rights advocates are on defensive rhetorical ground- “What possible need could one have for an assault weapon? Is hunting and and the fantasy of protecting one’s family from criminals or a tyrannical government worth the actual cost measured in children’s lives?”
And advocates fall into this trap, explaining through appeals to liberty and property rights (and more generally citations of negative rights) why gun-rights are important. This obviously places gun-control advocates on higher strategic grounds - all they must do is prove their newest restriction does not violate those negative rights too much, or that the positive their restrictions deliver (usually measured in pathetic [adj. pathos, but I’ll take the double-meaning] appeals measured in children’s lives) outweigh the restrictions against the gun-owners negative rights.
I think we should take the offensive more often, and cite the positive benefits of gun-ownership and gun-rights, such as defensive gun use. Even if it is hard to measure the exact quantity of lives saved, it seems uncontroversial that this is a major benefit.