I should note that I am not at all saying someone shouldn't be armed if they don't have training. Even a weakling carrying a .380 with white box FMJs can still be able to stop a violent crime, and many crimes stopped by civilians with firearms have been done so by civilians with little dynamic training. Thus, carrying without training is better than not carrying at all.
My point is that it would be a huge force multiplier to have civilians train for a dynamic persistent disadvantageous situation, which is what would be at play during a terrorist attack. A typical Mumbai/Nairobi terrorist attack will have several men armed with automatic rifles hitting a soft target. The more (dynamic) training people have, the better the potential set of outcomes.
But with that said, an ill - trained man is better than an unarmed man.
Yes! "American Rifleman" magazine every month has a page full of news clippings relating armed self-defense incidents. It's only a digest, but it makes a clear point: most of the defenders have little or no training, but were able to prevail against an aggressor because they were armed.
My point is that it would be a huge force multiplier to have civilians train for a dynamic persistent disadvantageous situation, which is what would be at play during a terrorist attack.
YES!!!! More training is better than less training, and quality matters. I encourage my friends to practice, learn, and practice more. Even 'games' like IDPA are helpful in improving comfort and proficiency.
But with that said, an ill - trained man is better than an unarmed man.
I agree ... all the training in the world won't put holes in the bad guys if the recipient of the training is unarmed.
Agreed all around. Good post.