Guns are useful for defending yourself from a home invasion

[branford]

65. Obviously, the entire point of most of post flew right over your head.

It was about straw man arguments and irrelevant questions. As I indicated, the right of self-defense, is not about being a hero or acting as a substitute or supplement for the police. However, you apparently had no problem when the prior poster questioned why those who owned firearm didn't prevent crimes or terrorist act unconnected with themselves (the question being even more odd considering that CA intentionally ensures its citizens have some of the greatest difficulties in the nation possessing, no less carrying, firearms). I simply offered a contravening question in response to the poster's own. If the anti-fun rights side engages in hypotheticals. you shouldn't be surprised when you are met some in return.

In any event. as you acknowledge, the dead in San Bernadino are sadly already dead, and the terrorists were quite thorough in their carnage. They cannot be more dead. How exactly could armed innocents have "escalated" San Bernadino? If any of the victims were lawfully armed, they may indeed not have had any effect on the incident. Nevertheless, particularly in tight quarters indoors, even a single lucky shot may have mitigated or stopped the massacre or permitted cover for one or more victims to escape. Moreover, if any individuals were armed, their only responsibility would be to save or protect themselves. It is the gun control side, with their movie fantasies, who demand that anything less than unnecessarily risky heroism is not worthwhile self defense. That is not the standard of the law, nor even simple prudence.