>>64234677
>>64234796
And what if there ARE no opportunities like this?
Let's say some kind of foreign military decided to assassinate you, they've got two options.
Either march someone over there to put a bullet in you personally or fire some explosive projectile remotely to kill you.
Let's also assume your countrymen are hostile to this armed force, meaning that if they march some infantry over to you through the street, your neighbors would be happy to throw heavy shit on them or outright shoot at them if they have the means.
If you live in a city, the path to your house involves going through a street that has a LOT of vantage points for your neighbors to do that, a street is basically a killing zone.
Plus there's a good chance the ensuing commotion would alert you to what's happening, which would allow you to escape or prepare for a last "fuck you".
So personally getting there is a poor choice for an army that doesn't treat its soldiers like cannon fodder, meaning plan B is to launch some missile at you.
Chances are you live in a city so I want you to really think about it.
When was the last time you were far enough from other people that if you were to get drone'd there would be no collateral? (human collateral specifically, ignoring property)
The vast majority of your life, without even intending it, you are in a position where you can't be droned without other people being hurt.
You're either at an apartment which you share with family/roommates, at work around other people, at school around a LOT of other people, on the road around many other people or on the way to any of the former.
The only times you might be alone enough is if you drive very late at night or go hiking or on vacation.
If you knew this enemy was waiting for you to do that to drone you, you could easily stay around other people forever without making much of a change in your life.
I don't think YOU think fighting a war waiting for those rare slip-ups is feasible