Most of the media I've read focuses on "armed citizens" and whether one might be effective stopping a mass shooting. It is generally judged that one would not likely be effective.

As a result, the conclusion is that there is no need to be an armed citizen or have access to a gun. The entire question of personal self-defense, especially in your own home, is ignored.

It does seem that some media outlets report on thwarted home invasions more sympathetically even when one or more of the invaders dies. However, in the broader discussions of gun ownership, these situation are largely ignored because they are contra-evidence for gun control.

Even if the invaders are not armed with firearms, they pose a serious threat even with other weapons. Multiple invaders are a threat armed or not for most people, especially the most vulnerable.

At 65, even with some martial arms training, I would not want to face two or three 20 somethings who were intend on harm without some sort of weapons, preferably a firearm.

It is so clear in cases where this sort of home invasion takes place a firearm sends the perpetrators running and usually leaves one or more wounded or dead. And it always seems to be the case that the police, through no fault of their own, arrive on the scene after it is all over.