"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

[haele]

77. Well, if she had a gun in the safe, she still may not have been able to use it.

I trained for security duties (and qualified as a marksman on the old Colt 45 Navy) back during the Cold War, and I learned there are at least two primary factors in a successful defense using a gun.

1 - Time and distance to target. If you have time to draw, and the target is far enough away, you can potentially hit it. If you are surprised, and or the target is close-in (within 5 meters or 15 feet) by the time you are ready to draw; don't draw. Protect your weapon and get away as quickly as you can to give yourself time and distance.

2 - The will to kill. While pulling the trigger may be easy, aiming and pulling that trigger is not easy for many people - even if they would be protecting themselves or loved ones. Our Vietnam Vet trainer told us that most "newbie" soldiers in-country missed their first couple dozen to hundred "enemy" before they got used to the idea of shooting to kill and actually started aiming at body mass. Even when being charged, they would not be aiming, so if they were lucky enough to get a few of the enemy soldiers, it was due to the amount of bullets in the air rather than aim.

These two factors have been proven over and over in the civilian world, too. How many times have we heard about the regular beat police (i.e. - not SWAT) using 50+ rounds to take down one "suspect" - because they weren't really used to the idea of shooting at living, moving bodies and panicked.

And of course, we don't hear about the many un-successful "self-protection" events, when someone was unable to retrieve their firearm or their weapon was used against them because they didn't have the time and distance to draw first and surprise the intruder or the abusive spouse - we just hear of the murder, and perhaps that there were guns in the house.

We do, however, always hear about the man or woman who had enough warning to get their weapon and the drop on the threat. And when that is evaluated, one finds that there is always time and distance between the threat and the person who is able to stand the threat down, even if the weapon is not fired.

So, knowing these two factors, do you think an average, non-prepper/militia type principal would:
-have the time before the gunman burst into her office to evaluate the situation, retreat to her office and get her handgun out of the safe, and,
- then have the will to go through with tracking down and accurately shooting the gunman down like a movie hero before he returned fire?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the one time I was faced with the choice of standing my ground with my sidearm, I ended up retreating and using my radio instead. I would have been within the law to shoot, as the opponent was threatening - belligerent, drunk and armed - and could have easily killed me and my partner, but I couldn't shoot when I had the chance. Because I didn't see a huge, noisy "moving target", I saw a person who was drunk and angry.
Some gun-nutters may call that cowardice, but I just don't have that much of a casual John Wayne personality towards others, nor had I been inured to pulling a trigger and killing by living with livestock or going out hunting.

Haele