I like to consider who is the aggressor in a given situation. The peaceful person sitting there, minding their own business, who also happens to own a gun? The one who uses the force and violence of the government to come and take the gun away?
Of course, that may be a bit of a straw man. They would say it's more like speed limits and other "common sense" precautions to reduce the number of crimes committed with guns. However, they always go after the peaceful person with the gun, so is it really a straw man?
It's not really a strawman when ya realize how much easier it would be for people to defend themselves from aggression, if "officials" didn't aggress upon them to prevent it.