Whoa, No need to get personal, just pointing out to you that in your model you used me as an example. You know nothing about me and I'm going to keep it that way (aside from what I shared with others in the thread discussing things we liked). There were reasons why the police officer responded the way he did (wife, occupation, location of weapons, mindset, physicial condition). I'm pointing out that my conditions are different, and since you singled me out, your assertion that the outcome would remain unchanged is erroneous.
Let's try again. My post was making the argument that making guns illegal would be unfair to those living in areas that could increase their chances of survivability against violent attacks. You made a point, which I acknowledged. And now I'm being called an internet tough guy because I stated that I've gotten training with firearms that I've purchased. Not knowing anything about me, please elaborate how the possibility of arming a violent criminal supercedes my currently legal right to own a firearm and become proficient in it.
Case 1: Bad guy comes into my house, I don't have any guns.
Case 2: Bad guy comes into my house, I have guns, but they will be taken from me because I'm not a 20 year old police detective who deals with dangerous situations at night
Case 3: Bad guy comes into my house, I have guns, and I know how to use them.
Also, remaining objective, so that we're on the same page, please describe an internet tough-guy, very specifically. It's a pretty wide umbrella term. I'm curious to see how you labeled me as such, knowing only what weapons I own and how proficient I am aiming to become.