Are these a set of logical fallacies used in arguments?

Hi again, and this is another set of fallacies that I have encountered in the outside world, mainly political arguments that use comparisons to disprove another, plus additional sweeping generalisation arguments and caustations. Here it is below:

First one:

Person 1: I want to advocate for the banning of certain dangerous guns.
Person 2: But the banning of alcohol didn't stop drinking, so how would banning those guns stop gun crime?

Second one:

Person 1: There are Nazis marching on the streets and the GOP is being complicit in this. This needs to be stopped!
Person 2: But this tweet about Nazis being Trumpists, this article about a correction about a generization and this video about the regressive left prove that the left are persecuting conservatives and rightwingers day by day! That is much worse!

Third one:

Person 1: I don't know why the Admin of the EPA needs so much protection. It's a waste of taxpayer money and this is why (Lists reasons)
Person 2: But he does get death threats! Don't forget about those numerous radical environmentalists wanting to kill him!
Person 1: Do you have any evidence for the death threats?
Person 2: Doesn't matter, because I know all radical environmentalists want to attack the EPA head.

Banning alcohol did not stop drinking. Prohibition created gangs so prohibition did more bad than good. However, regulation of alcohol does do good. In the same way an outright ban of all guns would be impossibly difficult. Maybe a crime ridden gun black market would come as a result of gun prohibition. However strict regulation of guns would do good. I am in favor of regulating guns much more than they are now, but not bannin them all together.