I thikn the key here is that, in spite of how badly it turned out when being staged by people who have no clue or intention of getting one;
How would being disarmed have made it any better?
This is the argument these propagandists are trying to present. Somehow, it would have been better to not have a gun. Really? How?
Tell me.
I want to know.
How is not even trying a good thing?
This is like showing a car fall off of a cliff and explode in a giant fireball, and then claiming that having your seat belt on would have been useful. Really? How? And maybe crashing into a mountainside at 750mph is completely harmless if you have your tray table up, and your seat in the full upright position. If you don't have a gun, other people shooting at you will have their bullets bounce off. Being helpless makes you impervious to harm.
Having a gun won't cause you to be impervious, either.
No one ever said that having a gun guarantees your safety. However, NOT having one DOES guarantee you're DEAD!
In the same way that CC is better than nothing, but nothing is the only thing CC is better than. Being helpless gives you no more tactical advantage or survivability than a gun burried under a few layers of clothing you have to struggle to get it free from and become useful eventually.... Sure, that's better than not having anything at all, but it sure as hell isn't an advantage over anything other than a fist full of pocket lint.... Moping the bathroom floor with a toothbrush is better than mopping it with nothing; but I'd rather use, say, a MOP!
OC: Because it sucks to mop the bathroom floor with a toothbrush. Sure, you can do it, but calling it an 'advantage' is stupid. Just like pretending things would turn out better if you were totally helpless... Things don't turn out better when you handicap yourself, either. One is just a little more sarcastic than the other. Both arguments are null by the same reality.