[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
When she initiates violence against you. In this instance, it would be the moment she squeezes the trigger (while pointing the gun at you, not her own head).

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if there are no bullets in the gun, or only blanks? Would I be justified in tackling her and breaking here arm to halt further attack, even though she couldn't possibly have harmed me? Does it matter if I perceive to be attacked, or if I actually am attacked?

[ QUOTE ]
Me either: rational people preempt threats. Hence, rational people disregard the empty claim that one must never initiate a force transaction against another person. It doesn't surprise me that you'd take this position... but it does, a little, that you'd do so while self-identifying as an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of reasoning isn't going to get us anywhere (setting aside for now that I disagree with you about what constitutes an intitiation of force by someone) since I've already stated in another thread that there are cases where a good person should disregrad property rights (at least temporarily). I don't take this to be an argument against anarchism, though, since I don't think the fact that, eg, I ought to steal to feed my child this one time, frees me from owing the guy restitution for my action. So as a rational person, I do think there are times when it is best to violate property rights (I also think that there are many things that one might do that are worse than some property-rights violations).

[ QUOTE ]
Preemption of threats is what government is (properly) about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What "threats" is it that you think government preempts (or ought to preempt)?