Why do you always imagine scenarios where the armed victim has to kill an unarmed attacker?

So, lets say they are armed.

In what way is having a gun.....bad for the victim?

Either way, attacker armed/not armed, it's better to have a gun to defend yourself.

Does the fact that you need the attacker to be unarmed for your scenario to work not prove why gun control is beneficial?

If the attacker is armed or not armed, it's still more beneficial to be armed yourself.

In reality (e.g. compare per capita homocide rates in the US vs Europe) you simply turn a knife fight where you are killed into a gunfight where you are killed.

Correct. The idea is to avoid all of these situations completely.

But, even as a 6'3 200 pound dude, i'd rather have the gun fight, than the knife fight!

Remember that criminals always habe the initiative - if they can't kill you before you can draw your gun they will simply look for another victim, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I saw a video on this sub the other day of a delivery driver who got out of his car and was surrounded by 3 people, 1 of which had a gun.

The attackers surrounded him and said : if you move I will kill you. They had the initiative.

Turns out, at some point, delivery driver was able to get his gun out, shot one of the attackers with the gun and the other two ran off.

People in this thread would rather the delivery driver be defenseless.

I can link the actual vid if anyone really cares. There's tons of videos like this all over Reddit, let alone the internet.