They need a gun with a longer barrel and a higher caliber.
Changing any variable like that could change the outcome of the fight, and not necessarily in favor of the women.
A larger gun may have resulted in slower response & firing time, more misses and therefore possible injury or death to one or both women which did not happen with the guns they used which in hindsight, did not happen with the weapons they used.
Obviously they both could have died as it was but...
Statistically, the best gun for self-defense is a 9 mil. They have laser light attachments that give you one shot one kill ability at close range. A Glock weighing 2.1 pounds has been endorsed by Navy Seals. It has a short barrel.
They have laser light attachments that give you one shot one kill ability at close range.
Though I've thankfully never been in a close quarter shoot out (or for that matter, even a long range one), can one watch the one above unfold and suggest that laser sighting would have been any help at all?
Everything happens too damn fast to even think, much less line up a laser on a moving target right in front of you. The extra half second one takes to do that may be longer than one's life expectancy.
Training and practice with a weapon that fits well in your hand grants the best advantage, I'd wager, more than laser sighting or weapon caliber.
I didn't say caliber didn't matter. But it's more important to be able to shoot in time and hit the target with a smaller caliber gun than to shoot too late or miss with a larger caliber. Women usually have smaller hands and the extra time it takes for small hands to pick up, aim and shoot with a higher caliber gun may be more time than the woman has. Squeezing off 3-4 shots with a lower caliber gun can make up the difference.
The ladies forgot to double and triple tap the perp.
They didn't so much forgot as much as they simply didn't have the training to do so, in all likelihood. That's not exactly something commonly emphasized when at the shooting range.