The problem is that it ignores all of the times that someone with no or minimal training has been successful in using firearms in self defense.
Realistically, how much training is necessary? Military and law enforcement are trained to engage in an offensive use of force to control and dominate the situation at all costs, even if it means killing potential threats that have not yet been confirmed as actual threats. Private individuals are only allowed to engage in a defensive use of force, and only for the purpose of protecting themselves from harm, not for the purpose of controlling the situation in the same manner law enforcement would. The two standards are quite different from one another.
What you don't understand, and which modern training takes into account, is that a bad guy is expecting you to comply and follow his commands. It's part of his power trip. With the proper application of tactics you can seize the initiative and now YOU possess the advantage of surprise. An individual I once trained with was out late for an evening and a bad guy stepped out of an alley and pulled a gun on him and demanded his wallet. The bad guy died with a look of eternal surprise on his face and a .45 caliber hole in his forehead.
When the only way you feel you can win an argument is to build a ridiculous strawman then you have lost And in this case the strawman is so badly constructed it has three arms and only one leg!!
It applies to the "old guys" as well Over and over I have heard on this forum that all one has to do is point the gun at the bad guy and they will drop it in terror and give up - or words to that effect There was even one member claiming that all he had to do was chamber a round in a shotgun and the bad guys would have run away' As for your story - how did the guy manage to draw and shoot whilst being at gunpoint?? Surely if the "bad guy" had meant to shoot he would have shot the second the man reached for his gun?
News from my part of the world, the NW U.S.: Boise, Idaho http://idahonews.com/news/local/boise-woman-scares-off-would-be-carjacker-with-her-pistol Near Spokane Washington https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635172428/Robber-is-shot-slain-at-Idaho-smoke-shop.html
This individual and I had both taken a series of training classes where they spoke about reaction time, seizing the initiative, and what they called the "OODA Loop." That defines how the human mind processes information, as in: "Observe, Orient, Decide, Act." You Observe something happening, you Orient towards it, you Decide what you're going to do, and then you Act on that decision. Getting inside someone's OODA loop means seizing the intiative; i.e. they expect you to do one thing and you do something else. Again and again in training, even simulated "robbers" mentally prepped for the idea of their victim fighting back were unable to prevent them from disarming them from contact distance or moving laterally and being able to draw and fire concealed weapons before the "bad guys" could recover and start to direct accurate fire at them. A criminal expects his would-be victim to freeze in fear and then comply with his orders. "GIMME YOUR WALLET!" is supposed to motivate the victim to meekly reach for their waistband, to draw out their money or valuables. When the "victim" instead moves explosively in a lateral motion the bad guy has to realize that's happening, process it's happening, and then decide how he's going to react. Again and again, even if the bad guy's first instinctive reaction is to pull the trigger, the shot goes where the "victim" was standing, and not where he is now that he's moving. In this particular case, the bad guy was caught flat footed as my friend explosively went laterally, and he was unable to fire before my friend was able to access his personal sidearm, bring his weapon up, and fire a single fatal shot.
So, are you willing to take the guns out of the hands of the people who have defended themselves? Lets be honest, the criminals will never give up their guns willingly, so you will essentially take away those defensive success stories and make it easier for rapist, thieves and murders. If, hypothetically you do take away guns from everyone, will a criminal no longer commit crimes? Will people like Michael Brown still not strong arm rob convenience stores for cigars? Will no criminal be able to get a knife or another long sharp object in which they force someone to give up cash or to rape some one?
I am not making a judgement call, just noting that it is an interesting perspective. To be fair for the most part governments aren't allowed to engage in the offensive use of force under international law but do anyway, same as private citizens with domestic law. Sometimes, as you argue often, laws exist and people just take the risk and ignore them for their own reasons.
Is it, though? The individual in the cited article, the supposed military personnel, comes off as being arrogant in their presented belief that a private individual cannot safely use a firearm for defensive purposes, despite there being no evidence that extensive training is necessary for such. It presents the notion of elitism being at play. The same applies to civilian law enforcement as well, considering the number of incidents where they shoot someone before determining whether or not they are even a threat. Which is correct. But it still leaves the question of just how much training is realistically necessary for the defensive use of a firearm.
You simply do not understand. When I worked at a Automotive Repair shop, One Sunday, we were closed, I heard a car being started, I looked out, it seemed someone was stealing a customer's car, so I grabbed my pump shotgun, chamber empty and holding it behind me walked up to the car, looked at the guy, did not recognize him, racked the shotgun. He turned out to be the car's owner and confessed two things, he was trying to leave without paying, he had soiled himself. And yes, you can prevail against an already drawn gun, it happens often.