Wouldn't one have to be excellent shooter to be effective in a emergency?

If you're read the posts here most think they are superman, yet the people on the scene at these mass murder situation know differently.

When the movie murders happened recently, they said that if someone was carrying they could have shot the man. And yet, experienced people said that in the dark, unable to identify a target, with people screaming and running it would be more dangerous to shoot than not to.

And now this one. We have people claiming that teachers ought to be armed.

Carrying a loaded gun in kindergarten.

So when someone breaks in, and starts firing they can fire back.

Not that they can expect to draw and be aiming while being killed by someone already shooting, but then, practicality isn't in their realm, they play video games not real life.

And that's even when you have an experienced person.

At the mall shooting the other day a man did have a gun, he said he went to take it out, but realized that he couldn't shoot the guy with any guarantee of hitting him and so he ran. That's real life, that's sensible, whats not is that the right claimed the shooter saw the gun and killed himself. That's right wing fantasy land.

Thats where they live.

there are two principals involved. 1 cover 2 accuracy. the biggest mistake anyone could make is to come out firing like a maniac. calm, measured, accurate, is how the army do it. there are systems of firing in place as well that will almost guarantee you get the kill over an inexperienced or non military opponent. all these things are commonplace knowledge to the armed forces and a few others.

your philosophical point is interesting, but essentially non really that prevalent an issue in the public. in the police casualties it may be a good point, but they are usually on the right side of the law when they act.

A "safety course" is not intended to teach a person to "make shoot to kill decisions when many unarmed citizens are present."

It takes practice.

If you get a concealed handgun license, generally you are sufficiently trained (although it is still a personal decision).

The research is clear on this. Even when people were given an in depth 6 week course, almost nobody even got a shot off, and among those who did, most hit a bystander.

So you would rather have no options at all and let the killer have his way unopposed?

I will vote for armed citizens every time. If you are afraid to defend yourself move to the U.K.

Yes, and if they were going up against someone armed with an assault rifle they would also have to be using a military type weapon.