You need 3 to 1 odds to attack a defended position. That is, you need to have 3 attackers for every 1 defender to have a statistical likelihood of victory. This is of course a very general rule. A sort of 'standard infantry assault' rule, assuming both sides have similar training and access to similar equipment. Force multipliers such as artillery, tanks, technological or intelligence imbalances can change the odds wildly (which is why they are called 'multipliers'). But generally speaking, a group of people trying to kill another group of people who are prepared to defend themselves need to have 3x as many people to do it, or they will be repelled before they can win. How does this relate to self defense? Well first off, you have to ready to defend yourself. In the previously mentioned scenario, if the defenders are unarmed or not prepared for an attack, that massively benefits the attackers chances of victory. A single prepared attacker can defeat many many times their number if the defenders are not ready for their attack. Skill is a force multiplier. Just as a group of SEALS or Delta or etc, who have trained specifically to take on vastly larger forces, are themselves a huge force multiplier, so it is when a single attacker who is well practiced has that force multiplier on their side should they want to attack someone. But if the defender is well practiced too, then the defender retains the advantage of the defense. How does this relate to gun control? By reducing the number of people carrying guns in public, violent criminals and the violently mentally ill gain the advantage. There is no meaningful way to statistically reduce the ability for an individual to figure out how to get a gun, legally or illegally. But making it harder to get guns in general will statistically reduce how many of them their are in the general populace, and this will shift the balance of attacker vs defender into the favor of the attacker. To put another way, violent criminals know there is some chance of one of their victims being armed, prepared for an attack, and killing them. The lower that chance, the more likely they are to attack. As less people are known to be armed, the chances of successful attack increase. Gun control will always benefit the attacker more than the defender.
true, I have had tons of training in this area-both governmental and former governmental (military and SWAT) operators running private facilities. everything you said, they would back up
One of the other reasons for that is because an attacker can just carry the gun to the place they plan to carry out the attack. The gun is very unlikely to be discovered (assuming guns are made illegal) before the crime is carried out. On the other hand, to be able to defend, an individual must always have the gun with them, since they do not know when an attack might be carried out. This makes it much more difficult for them to conceal the gun from government authorities, and more likely that they will be caught, than it is for the attacker. This applies not only just to guns but any means of defense which government chooses to restrict or make illegal.
