The presence of a firearm, or any other weapon, and the intent to kill are two very different things. A weapon in the absence of intent to kill is merely an object. A human with intent to do harm needs only the nearest object that gives an advantage over the target. For some humans that advantage is simply their own strength. I know a young man who is now a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law. He needs no object but his wits. Sitting at my desk I have several objects within reach that could be turned into a deadly weapon. I’m a big man. I could strangle, stab or bludgeon any unarmed assailant. Against you these ready objects are good enough because I know you are not armed. I know you are soft. Luckily, I have no intent to kill so they remain a letter opener, a paper weight, a thermos bottle and electrical cords.
The irony is that you think you are safer by denying your delivery guy a means of self defense. In fact you are less safe because you seek to deny not just the man at your door, but all drivers everywhere. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stop with pizza deliverers either. It is proven that the ubiquity of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens makes the society safer by both acting as a deterrent to criminals and occassionally by being used against a would-be assailant.
For every anecdote you provide of a firearm in the hands of the good guys causing harm there are many more examples where they caused good. The example you provided is proof of this. The policeman was killed by a criminal’s bullet. The criminal was killed by the police before he could harm again. How you could turn that into an argument against an armed populace is beyond me.
It is also ironic that the same people who argue against law abiding citizens carrying possessing weapons also advocate for the rights of criminals I think you should devote your energies to figuring out how to disarm, neutralize, deter and punish criminals.
