But do the facts support the claim that one NEVER needs a gun to defeat an armed attacker?
I'll certainly concede the point that it is possible, at times and under certain circumstances to defeat an armed attacker without the aid of a gun.
Of course that's a true claim and there are factual examples of situations that bear it out.
What concerns me are the situations where it would not be possible under any circumstances to defeat an armed attacker or group of attackers who are intent on or perfectly willing to commit murder.
Unless you're PERFECTLY comfortable in the idea that you, personally, could literally take ALL comers, under ALL circumstances, whether armed or unarmed, with ANY of the hundreds of types of implements that could be used to shoot, stab, bludgeon, choke, crush, or otherwise kill a person, you're a literal idiot to not arm yourself.
The way I see it, if two ~250 lb. ex con muscle-heads kicked in the door of my house at 0300 armed with hammers and crowbars there is nothing at all I could do to prevent them from killing me, my wife, and my two little boys if I were unarmed.
I'd certainly be willing to fight them to the death, and it is a near certainty that that's exactly the state I would be found in when police eventually got to my home.
But I'm the last line of defense for a 110 lb. woman, and two boys under the age of eight years old.
I'm not willing to take the chance that a couple of guys who would invade a person's home armed with deadly weapons would ALWAYS be willing to take the TV, the jewelry, and go on about their business.
And I'm not willing to take the chance that I would ALWAYS be physically capable of defeating them with my bare hands, a kitchen knife, or a blunt object.
And I live where I do (TX - I moved here from NJ) in part because I don't want it to even have to be a consideration that I try to reason with, wrestle with, otherwise dissuade, or flee from a home invader.
