Ive been asked that many times by antis. Although they typically choose something like grandpas revolver.
In this context my answer would have been different than I gave you if I had known..., why should the good guy have limitations?
Their question is a presupposition fallacy that does not define what "adequately protect" even means and sets you up to agree with them, I call that out immediately as manipulative. If you pull grandpas 32 revolver on a bad buy with an AK and he runs away youve "adequately" defended yourself regardless of how lucky you got, he just didnt want to risk getting shot its that simple but that does not in any way justify the disparity in resistance. In no way is that a metric to judge the respons of a different bad guy. Theres plenty of evidence of home invasions with multiple bad guys and multiple guns including "high capacity" weapons that limiting the good guy is complete tyranny, I typically start accusing them of creating crime victims to force their prohibition agenda. Typically people who put up that kind of argument cant be reasoned with anyways since they are intentionally manipulating the topic. I call them out and move on.
