Reply #33: Actually, what is more likely is that somebody will trot out that particular straw man

[Euromutt]

Oh wait, you already did. I consider my point proven.

It's odd, but I don't think I've ever actually encountered an RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) proponent who ever asserted that everything would have been fine if only the victim(s) had been armed. I've only ever read that claim as an RKBA opponent's "prediction" of what an RKBA proponent would say.

Now, I have heard RKBA proponents arguing that the victim should have been legally permitted to be armed, so as to have a better chance of successfully fighting back, if they so choose. Note, however, that "a better chance" ≠ "guaranteed success". Guns aren't magic talismans that ward off harm by their mystical powers, and very few RKBA proponents would assert that they are.

So there's a subtle but important difference between the two arguments, and that difference is what distinguishes an accurate representation from a straw man. And there's always somebody (usually several somebodies) who trots out the straw man, isn't there? I console myself with the thought that if that the evident need to do so means that there aren't any actual arguments to be made.