"Without warning he (the BG standing in front of his car) fired a shot at me. I felt no sign of impact to my body: I didn't even know that the slug hit me squarely in the middle of my chest. But my subconscious did, because it instantly sent gallons of adrenaline into my system, turning me into a stumbling zombie. I pulled my own revolver and tried to take cover behind a concrete pillar of the carport and fired off my first round in the direction of the attacker...
...The main attacker was still taking cover at the back of the car, less than two meters from me, and he kept firing at me.
He was constantly changing his position, never standing still.
It was almost impossible for me to correctly aim and shoot. I have been trained to shoot with both hands, but I recall that I fired one handed during this incident.....
..Then, without warning, the attackers turned tail and fled. As quickly as it started, so ended the first phase of my struggle for survival."
So at 2 meters he fired (six feet), not sure if he hit the guy or missed (no mention of blood or any kind of wound) and one thinks one handed fire was in some way superior to two handed fire (or point shooting for that matter.) The other guy just bugged out.
I don't see how this validates anything. Misses with one hand are about as good as misses with two hands.
On the other hand, I'd read Paul Howe's work on the subject. Might see other thoughts on this.
Say brownie, how much experience did the writer of the article have? Hmmm he had a wheel gun in the age of automatics. Kind of wonder about him. Please enlighten us.