Is it really possible to save people without a gun?

It was a 14 year old girl against a 260lb lineman phuckwad.

Last time I checked, having a gun made no difference in car accidents, heart attacks, and other such situations...

In the case of someone breaking and entering or something of the sort... well, it sure can't hurt. This is why I am pro-firearm and am a registered gun owner... however I'm still a liberal!

Sometimes, but here's no assurance. It is up to the assailant. They are in charge.

If you have a gun, they aren't in charge. You can challenge them and usually defeat them if you apply it properly, just like with any other tool. That's true even if they too have a gun. Armed defenders usually have the advantage over armed assailants. The military counts three-to-one advantage.

Statistically speaking, cars kill more friends than anything else. Accidents are accidents. Statistically speaking, citizen's guns stop more crime than anything else.

Iran, China, Cuba, and North Korea took the guns away from their civilians. How did that work out for their people in the end?

Obviously the answer is Yes because that exactly what the protagonist in your story did and it's also SOP for all hostage negotiating teams

Btw 1

Statistically speaking private gun ownership kills or wounds more friends than it does foes.

No, you need a gun to shoot bad people to protect 90 % of those who are in the grey area and 1% who are good.

Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore despised. Liberals have enormous compassion for terrorists and criminals, but little for their victims. All individual freedoms demand the responsible behavior of the individual, and therefore demand a moral code. Liberals despise freedom because they despise morality.

Sure i can use knifes, bows, crossbows, and my fists but guns make it easier and I don't have to get blood out of my clothes.

Not if you are trying to save them from people with guns.

So long as the attacker doesnt have a gun