Consider that an encounter of the least desirable kind happens in 3 sec or less at a distance of 7ft or closer. Now put your wife or daughter in those circumstances and let me know how much training you think she needs before she should be allowed to carry a self-defense tool.
As much as I could give her, and as much as she could stand, Grapeshot. Evidently, our time at the range was enough, as in just one lesson she proved to be a good shot, and said she felt comfortable with keeping a loaded firearm in the house, particular when I was away on TDY, and especially since she knew how to load it, safe it, clear it, and most imporantly, keep in a condition where all she had to do was pick it up and fire it, if need be.
Basic safety and the fundamentals can be taught in a few short sessions and should be. Granted that the more training and practice one obtains the greater the degree of proficiency, but no level of expertise should be required to protect the sanctity of life.
My first instruction to her: "Honey, if someone is in our home and you know it's not me, I want you to point this at him or her and pull the trigger. Otherwise, leave it alone."
And for the rest of our marriage I made DANG sure I called home after being on any extended trip!
Amazingly, despite our differences (often heated), neither of us pulled a Hollywood. We loved one another, and in a distant manner these days, still do. Judging by the 67% divorce rate, the 50% gun ownership rate, and the less than 1% murder rate, I'd say this is pretty much standard, and definitely not "Hollywood."
I have taken complete neophytes to the range, briefed them and watched virtually all respond in a manner that we might well hope for in our loved ones. What scares me more is that they should not be equipped to defend themselves.
A sad day. There's a reason the firearm, when introduced, was called "the equalizer." I question anyone who claims otherwise, along with their motives.
Rather than address what might happen (that is the mantra of those opposed), let's look at what does happen when those that have a need have the tool available. The results are immeasurably better.
When people are allowed to choose to be responsible with a minimum gauge, what do we have? Why just good citizens going about their normal, every day lives. That IS the reality of it.
BTW - that is precisely the circumstance/situation we enjoy in Virginia and a number of other states and with a darned good record too.
That's not only the reality of it now, but it was the required reality of things not so long ago:
In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those
of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in
1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." 26
In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws
provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for
him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. 27 In
Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured
servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
28
Citations can be found at the document's site.