Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Very true. However, the power and under-represented still have one powerful defense against the rich and powerful well-trained swordsmen that would not work NEARLY as well against anyone - rich or not - with a gun: The aforementioned running. And ANYONE can become proficient in running.

Besides, in my experience the rich and powerful of our day rarely trouble themselves with violence and historically they have had the backing of the police and the military, neither of whom I can imagine giving up the state-of-the-art weapon technology while such technology exists.

I'll also grant that smaller/weaker folks would have a hard time defending themselves against a gun, but only to an extent; much of blade work is quickness after all (short of people walking around armored). Meanwhile, it seems you are also assuming that both "combatants" would be armed. As it is rarely the case that both parties are armed in the situation of gun violence, I fail to see why we should assume it in the case of blade violence. In that case, if we assume that the majority case would be one where the offensive party has a weapon and the defensive party doesn't, then I think it works thus: A stronger person can defend themselves more easily from a blade than a weaker person could defend themselves from a blade, but a weaker person could defend themselves from a blade more easily than ANY person could defend themselves from a gun. After all, if you are being assailed by an armed person who is bigger and stronger than you, you have three options: Fight, Run, or Deflect attacks until you CAN run or until help arrives. If you choose to fight, he is bigger and stronger and armed, so your chances are fairly slim, so we can safely discount that as an unwise choice. Meanwhile, no matter how strong or how weak you are, it's easier to deflect and/or run from any form of blade than from a bullet.