Yes, please do. We must not be talking about the same situations. Do you just assume that the robber is generally the more powerful individual?
No, it has nothing at all to do with how powerful anyone is. It has to do with the fact that the aggressor in any confrontation is by definition the one responsible for instigating it. The aggressor knows and is prepared for what is about to happen, whereas their target more often than not has little or no such knowledge. The aggressor has the luxury of entering the confrontation armed and positioned advantageously, whereas the best their target can typically hope for is to have a weapon concealed somewhere on their person. The aggressor determines when the confrontation begins, they may have others available to support them and can choose a moment when the target is alone, etc - all of these things present an enormous advantage for the aggressor. What situations are you talking about, in which someone forced to defend themselves on the spot has any advantage at all over their assailant by virtue of being on the defensive? Are
you imagining situations in which the target of an attack has some kind of training, or physical strength differential, or other advantage that (all things being equal) may just as easily apply to both parties, or neither?
"Virtually any confrontation", I assume also includes those without weapons? And in those, why would the aggressor have an immediate advantage? (He or she could just as soon get their butt kicked by their intended victim.)
Even in a confrontation that involves no weapons whatsoever, an aggressor seeking to put their target down quickly can do so quite effectively by attacking from behind and without warning. It's called a
sucker punch or King hit, and it's effective and common enough that the police where I live have had to campaign for awareness of it to decrease the use of it, as people have been critically injured and even killed by King hits in nightclub brawls and the like.
What situation is that? (What other situation are we talking about aside from your own aforementioned?)
The one where you're chained to a wall. Being attacked whilst chained to a wall and having someone assail you by surprise aren't in any way equivalent. One is very likely to happen, the other is never likely to happen.
I would always assume them an idiot (more likely than not)—they are out robbing people. There are far easier (and less risky) ways to make a living than stealing bus fare from strangers... yet they are wandering the streets, looking for victims. Do I assume them incapable of hitting a target? No, but I doubt they are a trained marksman.
There is no reason at all for you to be drawing any of these conclusions. Criminals are not necessarily idiots. They are not necessarily inept. The fact that they are willing to take large risks does not necessarily indicate stupidity, it may indicate desperation. And they may well be much more proficient with a gun than you are. All of the assumptions you make here are very dangerous, and likely as not to get you badly hurt should you actually find yourself in a situation where someone is threatening you with a weapon.
**BTW, the debate has shifted to using the need for self defense as the targeted reason (to defeat) for owning a gun... But that ignores owning a gun for its own sake. (IE. For recreational shooting, among other things.)
I'm not in any way in favour of owning a gun "for its own sake". That's no reason to own a firearm at all, IMO. I'm completely in favour of being able to own a gun if you wish to use it for hunting or recreational shooting, or if you need it as a primary producer or in some other professional capacity. And I am absolutely dead-set against people walking around with guns on their person in the mistaken belief that they will afford them any sort of personal protection, for all of the aforementioned reasons - it's an arms race that those on the defensive can never hope to win.
