Full marks for effort, bu I think you'll find a lot of pain trying to have an intelligent conversation with this guy. You've laid everything out as clearly as anyone could hope for, but a certain limited amount of raw intelligence is required on the part of the reader.WTH?
You're the one who made this whole thing about the AB. It's in the damn thread title.
And yes, they are "worst case".
So no, I'm not the "loon" here, you are. It's your scenario and it bit you on the azz.
By "they" I mean the professional killers that the AB is.
If you're out-manned enough and out-gunned enough having an assault weapon may not save you in the end. But I'd rather have some chance rather than no chance, which is what you've got with no gun.
Self-defense in an enumerated constitutional right according to the SCOTUS. So yes, a gun designed for that purpose (within reason) should be legal.
Probably won't, especially if they get you with the first shot. So what?
"Nope". Just "nope"?
There are two conclusions that can be logically drawn from this story. The first, this is a isolated incident that should hold no bearing on policy beyond and additional datum to add to the body of information on the impact of firearm ownership on self defense. The second, this man had insufficient protection to defend himself, and we need to loosen regulations on private ownership. Obviously, the first is the better conclusion to draw, but if the OP chooses to isolate the incident, I don't see how anyone could argue this means guns are worthless for self defense. There would be no chance of him surviving without a firearm. The more powerful the weapon (and the more suited to personal defense), the better his chances of survival. Oh well, what can you do.