It is scarily easy to miss, even at physically close distances, when fighting for one's life.
I feel most people that haven't shot a gun, or have only shot a gun while sitting perfectly still and undistracted, underestimate the above fact.
If you do have access to guns and the ability to test this, do some sort of exercise to get yourself breathing heavily before shooting, you'll see the difference.
All of this presupposes that we agree the average citizen has the right to defend their life with adequate tools. Some may, with good statistical arguments at hand, determine that the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime does not meet the threshold for allowing this level of self defense.
I hope that partially answers your question
In my state it's required to qualify at a gun range in order to obtained a concealed carry permit. When my turn came I experienced a huge adrenaline rush. I did hit the target adequately but was surprised at how difficult it was under pressure. I've never experienced this before when going to the range and casually shooting.
I expect in a real world scenario where the assailant is not a static paper target, you're more likely to miss than not.
I think this is it
This includes the fact that, when you are firing under pressure, you will very likely miss or not hit critical areas. Most assailants don't stop because you've hit some vital organ, they stop because of blood loss. That takes time. Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be).
And let's be clear: the onus is on you to justify denying a law-abiding civilian the right to possess such a weapon. Given that we are talking about a constitutional right (one which the text clearly states "shall not be infringed") you would need to show a standard of strict scrutiny to justify denying those citizens their right.
It also says "well regulated".
>Bullet wounds aren't typically huge (like knife wounds can be)
Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes.
> to bring order, method, or uniformity > to regulate one's habits
That being said, we should make gun safety classes low cost/ free for all interested citizens.
Which, at the time and in context, meant "properly trained". The point of the text was that an armed and trained society was necessary to preserve freedom, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> Someone's not seen the mess a 5.56mm round makes.
Sure, it's not going to be pretty. Even a 9mm (or a .22) is not going to be fun. Let me put it a different way: I've heard multiple knowledgeable people say they would rather get shot than stabbed.
Trigger cranks, folding braces, "forced-reset" triggers, tac-sacs, CA compliant mag releases, featureless grips, they come up with lots of those stuffs.
