There are a lot of stupid arguments that people who are opposed to self-defense make; but, the one that takes the cake is the idea that an armed would-be victim can't use a weapon against an unarmed assailant.
The mistake that I've made is going straight to the issue of an assailant having a physical advantage over the victim. That's still true; but, I'm already giving people too much credit.
The simple fact that any assailant, armed or unarmed, desires to inflict death or severe bodily injury on a person who simply wants to avoid death or serious bodily injury and has no desire to inflict damage on another person gives the assailant an advantage in an otherwise even fight.
That said, do any of you who take this position that armed would-be victims can't use the weapon if the attacker is unarmed seriously not know how bullying works? Maybe the quarterback on the high school football team has his fun beating up kids who are smaller than him because he's a relatively big dude; but, he's not gonna try that with his left tackle. Violent criminals, especially when they're unarmed, aren't gonna pick fights that they're likely to lose.
Moreover, are you living in a fantasy land where violent criminals are walking up to victims and challenging then to duels, "Pistols at dawn! I shall have satisfaction"? You don't think that violent criminals sucker punch or blind side their victims to stack the fight in their favor. I mean, a few years ago an unarmed attacker in Chicago attacked a unarmed homeowner by suprise and he gouged the homeowners eyes out and bit off his ears. The attacker never pulled a knife or a gun. He didn't need them. The victim sure did; but, if the victim had managed to pull a knife and kill his attacker before the attacker did any serious damage, a lot of you would have the homeowner on trial for murder and wouldn't think twice about it.
It's incredibly easy to go the Same Harris route and point out that men are generally taller, heavier, stronger, and faster than women and, in a case where a man is trying to beat or rape a woman or both, the woman's equalizer is a gun. No, it's not an equalizer to teach women to punch a guy with their keys and kick him in the balls.
Still, going straight there is giving a lot of you too much credit. Really, the bottom line is simpler. If you believe in the old Soviet model of self-defense which is basically that, if the person attacking you pulls a knife then you can pull yours if you have one, you believe that the person who started the fight gets to set the rules for what the victim is allowed to do and he gets to do it on the fly.
If the logic behind this idea that would-be victims can't use a weapon against an unarmed attacker makes sense to you for one second, you are pro-violent-criminal.