This is one of the scenarios that I point to when I argue for we the public to be allowed the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates often say that the public don't need weapons to protect themselves from evil criminals because all they have to do is call the police and they'll be there post haste. They never consider that maybe you won't be able to get to a phone or can't afford one. Anyway whilst it's difficult to show that this poor woman would have been able to defend herself with a gun, imagine any scenario where the police cannot get to you in time.News.com.au - GOLD Coast police took up to 3 1/2 hours to respond to a violent domestic dispute in which a woman was brutally bashed in front of her nine-year-old son and ended up on life support. The boy told police his mother resembled "a rag doll" after a sustained attack lasting up to 90 minutes. It was so violent that her blood was found splattered on the ceiling.
They took more than 3 hours to get to this incident, what if some 200 pound maniac is breaking down your door with the idea that rearranging your teeth and having your spleen for his dinner is the answer to all his woes. Say you can afford a phone and make the call expecting the cops to turn up and they just don't because they're busy rescuing some other poor bastard, what are you going to do, to avoid the aforementioned maniac from 'solving' his problems? If you had a gun, you could just blow his head off as soon as he makes past the door.
Given the above, that the state simply cannot protect you, can anyone seriously give me a legitimate argument for gun control?