If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Handgun ownership of any kind should be totally illegal, save for the military and police. Their primary function is as a tactical weapon to kill humans, and military and police sometimes have to kill humans. They are highly dangerous and can be concealed. I can very reluctantly concede rifle ownership if there are draconian policies in place to control and regulate their use. Fundamentally, they pose too much of a danger to public safety and our society to be justified on the basis of the supposed importance of individual rights, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory justification for general ownership of guns that I can't shoot full of holes (pun intended, naturally).

Because this topic always invites responses outlining the various fallacies defending gun ownership, I will outline those I know of now and speak to them. If you were going to respond with one of these, it will save a) your time, and b) my anguish. For your convenience, I will present these fallacies in order of increasing retardation.

1) I need a gun to defend home invasions.

This is somewhat understandable, except that there are statistics showing guns are often mistakenly used on family members as opposed to intruders. More fundamentally than that, however, you shouldn't have the right to kill someone who enters your house no questions asked. No, it's not a castle, and even if it were, a castle isn't a carte blanche to kill an invader, whatever their condition. Does nobody consider hiding anymore? Everyone wants to be John Wayne and protect their DVD player? If you aggressively confront someone invading your home with a gun, I have no sympathy for you if they manage to shoot you first. If home invasions are such a problem that everyone needs guns, then guns are ironically not the solution, the society has critically important systemic failings that gun ownership would only mask, and that same mass gun ownership would only create new problems.

2) Gun regulation is pointless, criminals don't respect the law.

Sometimes I can't decide whether this is the least retarded or the most retarded. First of all, it seems to forget is that gun-related tragedies aren't necessarily perpetrated by the "law abiding" owner (ergo, it may be impossible to describe a gun as being 100% lawfully owned). The columbine tragedy was perpetrated by someone who had dangerous and unnecessary access to a gun. Since this access can't be eliminated with 100% reliability, a gun can't be 100% lawfully owned. Secondly, it assumes tragic occurrences involving guns must necessarily involve immoral acts. This is not a logical assumption, and in fact it's intuitively wrong. Some incidences involving self defense may not involve an immoral intent but nevertheless result in an unnecessary tragedy. I tried to find the link, but it's a few years old. Basically some crazy old lady killed a drunk 21 year old college student returning home from a party with a shotgun after he accidentally entered her apartment instead of his (she forgot to lock her door, but remembered to load her gun). Thirdly, criminal use of firearms does not morally invalidate efforts to regulate said firearms. This is by definition. Criminal use of firearms falls outside of the law. You don't take unlawful actions into account when deciding what is the most moral or inclusive. Criminals also don't respect speed laws, that doesn't mean speed limits are based on faulty moral grounds. Finally, when guns are common and accessible anyone can get them, criminal or otherwise. If they are tightly regulated, it will be very much more difficult for criminals to gain access to them, especially considering it's difficult to hide the sale of ammunition.

3) Guns are a defensive weapon

First of all, guns are not a defensive weapon, they are very much an offensive weapon. Let me explain what I mean. If you have a knife you can defend yourself by eliminating someone's desire to approach you. This works in much the same way with two people carrying knives. One person carrying a gun can do this perhaps, but it falls apart when everyone has them. If you have a gun and you need to reliably defend yourself from an assailant carrying a gun, you have no option but to shoot. This is simply the offensive nature of the gun, it is independent of an approach or a defensive perimeter, its effectiveness as a weapon supersedes all of that. Yes, there have been numerous (hundreds) of examples of a civilian shooting someone in "self defense" because the other person was carrying a gun, and he was afraid for his life. This is a mentally retarded hypocritical justification. So I'm supposed to respect that you're a responsible adult capable of carrying a gun, when you are apparently unwilling to do the same for fellow gun owners? If you end up with a society where everyone is carrying around guns to defend themselves, this will inevitably follow.

4) I need a gun to defend myself when I leave my home.

No you don't. Police are trained to defend themselves with and without guns. Yes, even when they leave their homes. Yes, police are often expected to subdue someone attacking them with non-lethal force. Why should you be any different? Pepper sprays and tazers aren't good enough if you can't rely on your physical strength? You might need a gun to defend yourself if everyone has guns, but as I've just explained, you'd be putting yourself and everyone around you in a position where they have to shoot first. Do we want this? No. I don't wanna be on a street with a bunch of people carrying guns, ready to shoot first when they feel threatened by another gun.

5) I need a gun to hunt for food.

First of all I'm not 100% against rifles for hunting, so I can let this one slide somewhat. Where it becomes mentally retarded is when people who live in cities say it. Shop at Safeway like everyone else -- stop pretending your hunting weekends are a necessity rather than a desire, when your gun poses a public safety risk.

6) If more law abiding citizens own guns, crime will decrease.

I'm gonna have to rudely disagree. Not only are there statistics correlating general gun ownership with increased levels of violent gun-related crime, it makes the job of the police more difficult. Every time they pull someone over, they have to assume someone is carrying a gun in the car. And I don't think the police being more likely to shoot first and ask questions later is likely to decrease crime or help society in general.

7) Guns don't kill people, people kill people

I hate people who say this will every single measure of life I possess. It's such a ridiculous denialist cop out. An irreverent exercise in what amounts to little more than semantics that trivializes gun violence. Guns facilitate the killing of people. This is why the weapons dealers who cash in on war in Africa are so universally loathed. Yes, those people are capable of killing people without guns, but with guns hundreds of thousands of people die. Guns also kill people on a time frame that precludes restraint. A gun is the perfect tool for a crime of passion, it takes less than a second to murder someone, before those pesky voices in your head remind you that it might not be a good idea. Guns are also very fast firing, often easily concealable highly lethal implements that can be fired from close, from far, from a moving car, etc. Notwithstanding the point that if people truly do kill people as proponents of gun ownership are quick to remind us, then why is it logical for people to be trusted with guns?

8) A gun is like a car, both can be used to kill someone

A car is designed for a very specific purpose. The fact that it can be alternatively or incidentally used to kill someone is not a logical basis to compare it to a gun. This is because the purpose specific to the design of a gun is itself killing. The fact that it can alternatively or incidentally be used for recreation is irrelevant. This logic can be applied to denounce any non weapon capable of killing being used as a basis to detract from the violent intent behind the design of a gun.