Jim, I agree with most of what you say, but my concern is with the end statement. It touches on the one area I see anti-gun advocates use time and time again. You're not quite there, but are close.

The idea is the fear-mongering argument that a gun will do you no good because you aren't trained well enough to use it to protect. There seems an undercurrent that every criminal (or sadly, just plain fool in some cases) is a commando whose only purpose is to outgun you.

This simply isn't the case. In most cases, urban criminals have little or no actual training with the weapons they carry. Granted, this makes them most dangerous to the bystanders that were never the actual target in a shooting, but it also begins to debunk the idea that "having a gun does you no good, and you will likely die from your own weapon if you carry one."

Yes, if an adversary has the drop on you in the midst of a robbery, the wisest move is give him what he demands, but this does NOT mean your weapon remains utterly useless in all settings. The previously mentioned incident in Texas shows the truth of this.

I often hear that just because you've attended a CCL course and fired many rounds at the range, this doesn't make you prepared for real shooting against a living target. Granted, there is a difference, and I know it first hand. But if training isn't enough then logic says there are only two alternatives: passively be victimized or seek out a shootout with NO training. Neither are acceptable alternatives. For the law-abiding citizen, training is the ONLY thing which can bring him or her anywhere near preparedness. I find it much desirable my loved ones have SOME training rather than none, even if they are not able to obtain regular training every weekend or within the context of their professional life.

Based on the accounts from the death of Meredith Emerson, I suspect that if she had been carrying, she may well have survived her encounter in the north Georgia hills. She fought visciously against her assailant, according to his confession, but was much smaller and unable to ultimately fend him off. No one can say with certainly a firearm would have made the diference, but to say it certainly would have made NO difference plays into a tired, faulty argument from the anti-gun constituency.