I get where Dave’s apprehension is coming from, but it’s misguided. He’s thinking, “Gee, I don’t really want an armed man showing up at my house, even if I did invite him to deliver pizza.” While it’s possible some grief could come of that, it’s far less likely than pizza guys getting mugged, and they deserve the right to defend themselves. (Pizza Hut can also set any policy it wants of course, but the policy is pretty stupid on this point and needs to change.) For the pizza guy, what possible other option is there? Telling drivers to let themselves get robbed is stupid policy because the robber may, as one other poster mentioned, still kill them.
Why bring the cop/assailant shootout into this, though? It’s apples and oranges. A policeman using his weapon in the line of duty doesn’t change any equations here, and an armed thug isn’t really any less likely to be armed even if well-meaning laws are passed to try to prevent it. But that’s not even the issue here either, since this case isn’t about gun control but the ethics of Pizza Hut’s policy. If he’s saying the cop being armed didn’t keep him from getting killed, well there’s something to that I guess, but it didn’t hurt either.
To respond to a poster above, the reason a gun makes you likelier to survive a violent confrontation is not because it can magically deflect bullets, nor necessarily because it can scare off an attacker. It’s because if your attacker misses, is slower than you, or doesn’t kill you on the first shot, you can put the attack to an end. Having a means of defense can be the difference between one non-fatal gunshot wound and three wounds. It can be the difference between getting shot and not getting shot at all. If some crazy is determined to shoot you, then yes, he’ll try–and he’ll keep trying till you’re dead. Being able to shoot back makes a big difference.
