There has never been more of a hotter topic than that of guns and gun control. I used to get a ton of questions regarding the usage of firearms within the realm of self-protection. But because of the political polarization of guns, over time, it became more of a political and less of a self-protection question. The political question is, would there be less murders if there were less guns? That is not a question we can answer. There are plenty of experts that get paid a ton of money to argue over the validity of those types of statements and claims, and at the end of the day an educated guess is still speculation.
The 2nd amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of self-protection, specifically a firearm for the purpose of self-protection; including but not limited to, being able to remove tyrannical governments (This amendment works in concert with the 4th amendment). The first knee jerk response is usually, "come on, come back to the real world; our government isn't going to turn against it's own people!" I hear this and I immediately look at the testimonies of refugees from Syria, China, North Korea, Africa etc. How much of that treatment of those civilians started with the taking away a peoples right to self-protection. And if they had the ability to protect themselves would we see the humanitarian crisis in those countries that we see today? Did it start with a Government manipulating is own people to turn in their own guns or to turn against the ones that have them? Again, we can leave that up to speculation. But knowing that it is the natural course of power to corrupt ultimately, the 2nd amendment was installed as an accountability towards the governing body.
The firearm and it's relevance for self-protection is something that is very clear and logical. Violence uses a system of attack that creates a negative position on the power curve for the victim (meaning the attacker is doing all the damage). The gun or firearm is a weapon. A weapon acts as a force multiplier in any violent engagement. The victim will remain the victim until he or she secures the superior position on the power cure. Logic then dictates that the victim needs a force multiplier to go from a negative position to a positive position on the power curve to survive this attack. The most reliable way would be to use a weapon as your force multiplier. It is possible to actually become a force multiplier in and of yourself, however it takes years to truly weaponize yourself (just your body). Therefore, one would use a force multiplier in form of a weapon. What that weapon is is a variable, not an ingredient.
The key to all self-protection starts with understanding the threat disparity contained within the fabric of violence makes violence a-symmetrical. It is this a-symmetrical component of violence that creates the dynamic of attacker and victim. There are often times when a knife would be a better more attainable option for a self-protection weapon. There are other times a firearm is what is needed to stop the deaths of you and yours. One of those other times is if the attacker has a firearm to begin with. By being bigger and stronger, having more people, ambush style attack and the use of weapons is how violence creates dominance and threat disparity. It's what we call "Force Resistance".
Everything we know about violence tells us one thing. If you don't want to be a victim, weaponize yourself. Now what weapon you use is up to you, your state laws and a hand full of tactical principles. When looking at how to stop an attacker with weapons, specifically a gun, the principle shouldn't change because its a single shooting or a mass shooting; maintain equal or superior weaponry and the ability to use it. This is the physics of countering violence. The bad guy, his intentions and the victims; those are the ingredients that need to be effected to foil the violent act. The means or weaponry is a variable and changing a variable doesn't effect the bad guy, his intentions or the fact that there will be victims.
I wish I could make it so no emotionally or psychologically displaced person could have access to weaponry of any type, especially a gun. However, if you are a well adjusted human being that is even somewhat cerebral and have a moral compass, you should obtain weaponry if you need to protect more than just yourself, and yes a gun is a good option for home invasion. It is both my personal and professional opinion that anyone who owns a firearm should be extensively trained in safety, shooting, tactical acquisition, yearly check ups and maintain the ability of in-fight weapon access.
If you are concerned with being a victim of a shooting, a stabbing or any other type of violent encounter then you should train! Now ask yourself this question, if while your mother, daughter or sister was being attacked, rapped and beaten, she had access to a gun, would you or would you not want her to use it?