I don't have quite the level of energy required to detail all my thoughts on this matter, but in the wake of the Aurora killings, I have heard the three following 'arguments' from, I believe, Republican supporters of not imposing greater gun control in the US:
"Guns are less lethal than bombs"
Yes, this was one of them. The quote I read was roughly "hey, this guy apparently knew explosives, so be thankful he had access to guns, or it could have been much worse."
"Gun control caused more deaths in the movie theater"
Again, this is an actual argument made by an (ex-) Republican politician. His argument being that, apparently, there's a 'no guns' policy in American movie theaters, so the victims were un-armed when they were attacked. Had they only had their fire-arms with them, they could have returned fire, thus disabling the miscreant before there was too much loss of life.
"The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to kill, and they killed thousands"
Basically, there were many more victims of the 9/11 attacks than at Aurora, and those killers did not use guns, they used planes, so removing access to guns wouldn't have stopped the largest single terrorist act against the US.
-------------
I don't intend to critique these arguments, as I don't believe that is necessary. There are no words I could use to adequately express their fallacy; and any I gave would not dissuade those who hold such opinions from their views, as they evidently possess a form of logic completely alien to my own.
I just felt like recording them here, for the sheer wonder they inspired in me.
