Ad hominem requires not just that the counter targets you personally but is also irrelevant to the argument but used as though it were. If I call someone an asshole during an argument, that isn't usually ad hominem, if I call him irrational, that is not ad hominem. The term is getting abused more of late, especially on this site, then Strawman. "What does this man know about surgery? He's an obsessive gambler" is ad hominem. "What does this man know about surgery? He is not a doctor." is typically not. Claiming your opponent's argument (or they) are irrational or incoherent and so on generally won't be ad hominem and most cases I can think of it coming near that first hit various other ones like appeal to ridicule or proof by verbosity, in the context that one might try to discredit an opponent by simply repeating your belief they're a moron rather than ever explaining why.

Now I mention proof by verbosity partially because people use it all the time in these 'hot button' topics and probably most often as the 'everyone knows' ad populum fallacy or it's variation 'everyone with a brain/heart/etc' knows', and that latter is pretty odious on nearly an use but especially anyone in which 'everyone' doesn't include 90+% of adults, like 'the Earth is roughly spherical, not flat'.

I'm going into this because either you've got an incorrect view of what 'ad hominem' means or you think your opponent is too stupid or willfully blind to see the coherence and rightness of your arguments. Problem is, I didn't think they were coherent either, I do not see any justification for your #2 'A lot of people seem to claim/think that of the possible situations, situation 2 is preferable.' nor do you explain why in the hell it is actually relevant. A lot of people think the Moon Landing was faked, ' a lot' is a very vague term, and further one might ask what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Whatever point you were aiming for there, it either doesn't make sense or you have done the classic mistaking of leaving important bits out of an argument that were entirely right but remained in your head and never got transmitted to the audience, pretty common especially in casually written remarks. So it does come off as incoherent, because frankly you didn't get around to gluing them together, they are not adhering, not cohering.

As to #4, that's demonstrably false in numerous reasonable cases I'll cheerfully explain why in inordinate detail if you want, but for brevity's sake here, your case would require literally that there is no reasonable case where self-defense can occur using a gun that spends most of its time locked up in a safe, which is true of damn near every gun every military uses.

You've also started with a pretty confusing premise in the first place, since it revolves around the potential danger of a gun to its owner, something most gun owners are quite aware of, everything has its pros and cons, but in this case is best compared to a bodyguard. An awful lot of people have been betrayed by bodyguards throughout history, this does not invalidate the idea of having some. The logic you've presented would apply equally well to such cases and is very bizarre presented as a serious argument. Many people are murdered by family members or trusted persons, its not a very good reason not to have such people. A city wall won't protect you from riots in the streets, doesn't mean it serves no useful purpose, so to very little can protect you from treachery by a relative or close friend, this doesn't mean it's pointless, just unlikely to protect you from that specific thing. A locked door won't protect your form being robbed by your kid with a key, doesn't mean you don't bother having a door with a lock on it.