Why do people who are obsessed with owning weapons for defense, especially for imagined defense against tyranny, always end up with such loopy arguments for support?

It might be easier to take on the issue from a different angle than gun ownership rights, since the real problem in question is that of innocent people getting shot. It is always the case with “rights” that when they conflict with other rights there has to be a boundary created, a limitation, a regulation. In the contest of to kill, or not to be killed, what is the answer, Hatrack? What is the corresponding responsibility of gun owners to coexist with the right of people to be safe from being shot?

Let me make it simple - what do you propose as a solution for gun violence?

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller