> it is called training

Even if I take you at your word for the sake of argument, what percentage, do you think, roughly, of gun owners are going to take "a few years, several thousand rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance" to get to that level? Because guns without manual safeties are sold to people regardless of such skill level, and no such demonstration of skill is required for licensing in order to purchase such a manual-safety-less weapon. Especially in legal environments where the Second Amendment is used to justify weapons purchases without or with minimal licensing or other restrictions, it is all the more incumbent for people to understand what their real limitations are, for their own safety.

> Disparity of force

Perhaps, instead of "a few years" at the range, you might want to take a couple of self-defense classes? In the range where martial arts matter, skill is a far greater determinant than sheer physical size. I'll grant you that martial arts is not a universal strategy (e.g. people in wheelchairs), but I would also argue that, of the people for whom martial arts is not a strategy, in a significant plurality if not a majority of cases where such incompatibility is due to frailty, such frailty will also usually preclude the kind of "few years, several thousand rounds of ammo, and periodic maintenance", not to mention reaction speed, that it would take to actually succeed in a drawing contest.

> They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force.

Many, many Good Samaritans out there would disagree with this offensive take that shows more how society has disintegrated than anything else in this thread. The audience should note that I, someone who does carry, am apparently a "sheepdog" because I decide to employ a manual safety, am aware of my limitations, and encourage others to be honest with themselves instead of thinking that they're big people just because they went out and bought a firearm.