[QUOTE="MyWifeSaidYes]So, the elderly lady who never fired a gun in her life, but had one in her bedroom nightstand, who faced a home invader, got to that gun and shot her attacker,...what?
She sucks because she didn't have all the "necessary" "skills" for "effective" gun use?
The only thing she didn't do was "carry" the gun.
I'm not against training. Heck, I'm and NRA Instructor. But training is not the "ultimate answer" to anything in a self-defense situation.
If you want to use a gun "effectively", you need to have a gun and you need to have the will to use it.
[/QUOTE]
As noted in the title of my article, ..."Effectively carry..." is not the same as just using a firearm.
In your example, I would sincerely hope that if your elderly lady had a gun in her nightstand that she had at least shot it before. I also never said people who don't have those skills "suck" as you so eloquently put it. Anyone has the right to defend themselves, and one could even do so under the right circumstances with minimal or no training. My point is to evaluate your skills as those I listed will give you the best chance at winning an armed confrontation. Is it my opinion, sure it is, and you are entitled to yours as is anyone else.
I will say this though in regards to the example you gave. She better hope there is never more than one intruder. She better hope she doesn't have a malfunction. She better hope she it only takes 1 shot to stop the intruder. And she better hope she doesn't have to reload. If any of those happen, she will be in serious trouble.
As my mentor often said, "Hope is not a course of action". There is no "ultimate answer" to anything. I certainly wouldn't want to go 1 on 1 against Michael Jordan without practicing/training and just HOPE that I win. Especially if my life depended on it.
To each his own.
