Is self defense considered a no-no, or just self defense with a weapon? Are you allowed to meet violence against you with equivalent force on the your (the victims) side? I would hope that a 250 lb young attacker beating on an 85 year old frail lady with his fists could legally be repelled with something better than that old ladies fists, which wouldn't be very effective. Fist-for-fist would not be equivalent in this case. Chances are the old lady couldn't even repel the attacker with a knife or a club. About the only thing that would be potentially effective, but not guaranteed, would be a gun in this case. Since those are a no-no, is the old lady just supposed to suck it up and die? I can't understand the mindset behind a law like that. Is it supposed to be for the better good of society for the attacker to live and the old lady to die? It rings rather hollow for me that someone would later smugly say, "Well, at least a GUN wasn't involved. R.I.P. old lady."