Sounds like you've created your own ridiculous hyperbole. The OP said armed men.
Yes, that means plural, and means I'm outnumbered.
That also doesn't change your intent, namely to scare the crap out of those who advocate gun control, rather than present a rational analysis of the situation.
You coming along and stating that something that happens every day in just about every single country around the world is "ridiculous hyperbole", just makes you look like an idiot.
You certainly did not stipulate that you were talking about a war zone.
Nor does that necessarily help. Let's say the year is 2002, you own an AK-47 (a common occurrence, as gun ownership rates were quite high during Hussein's regime), and a bunch of heavily American soldiers burst into your house. You might conclude that they will arrest you and ship you off to Abu Ghraib. Do you open fire on them? Are you going to change your mind about gun ownership because of that experience?
Should you change your mind about gun ownership because of that experience?
In addition, There is no statistical evidence that I know of to indicate that a home invasion, by armed men, with a specific intent to cause grievous harm (as opposed to robbery) is a highly likely circumstance in the US, or in most nations.
And yet again: The evidence clearly shows that the "everyday occurrence" of violent deaths is suicide, followed by people being harmed by their friends, family, spouse or acquaintance. "Stranger danger" is vastly overstated, and not a good justification for liberal gun ownership policies.
The point of the OP was to try to see if people who so feverishly want to ban and control guns would ever want one for themselves.
1) I answered that question in my first post in this thread. For me, the answer is clearly NO.
2) You erroneously assume that people who are for gun control have never had to face a violent situation.
3) You're basically agreeing with me. You don't want to rationally discuss the situation, it's to present an emotionally manipulative hypothetical.
Or, think of it this way: Let's say there is a drug which can reduce the probability of developing cancer by 5%, but it increases the chances of a heart attack by 100%. Is the best way to analyze that situation to discuss heart-wrenching stories about people with cancer? No. The proper thing to do is to figure out whether the drug is still beneficial to specific individuals, whether its negative effects can be mitigated, and whether sufficient restrictions can be put in place to prevent its misuse.
There is zero correlation between gun ownership rate and overall murder rate.
BU Researcher Finds Correlation Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide » Public Relations | Blog Archive | Boston University
Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard School of Public Health
No, Chicago Isn't Proof That Gun Regulation Doesn't Work | ThinkProgress
I won't say it's a total lock, as it's a complicated issue with many cultural and legal aspects. But it's good enough to make a reasonable claim to that effect.
If you'd like to ban all guns because you think the bill of rights is silly
Talk about "ridiculous hyperbole." I certainly never said I wanted to "ban all guns" or that the "Bill of Rights is silly."
In fact, as I hinted earlier, your poll creates a false dilemma. We can advocate for restrictions on gun ownership, while still accepting the use of guns for target shooting, hunting and protection. You can certainly advocate for a 10-round magazine limit for civilians, without "secretly" wanting to ban all guns. "Less guns, less powerful guns and smaller magazines" does not mean "ban all guns for everyone forever!"
The rest of us enjoy the right to defend our families were the situation to arise.
Or, perhaps you are putting your family at risk by having a gun in the household, and you are exaggerating your need to protect your family.
In retrospect, should I have worded the OP poll differently to ask if there was any situation anti-gunners would want a gun? Yeah, probably, but then again, incessant whiners like yourself would still show up and find a way to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.
Again: I explicitly stated, in my first post in this thread, that my answer was no. I've been in violent situations, and have not concluded on that basis that owning a gun would have improved the situation.
It is highly unlikely you could craft any hypothetical that would make me personally want to own a gun; and whatever situation that might be, will be so unlikely and esoteric that it won't change my mind about wanting to own a gun.
Or, to put it another way: If I had a rational reason or reasons to believe that owning a gun would improve my safety, why wouldn't I own one already?