"A rifle is fine IF they know what they are doing BUT if these guys arent taking shooting courses then they certainly arent taking "shoot and move tactical" classes. So when they go roaming around the house looking for "that noise", can they really maneuver with that 10-22 without getting it snatched from them?"

OK, I would agree, but only in context. But the other side of the coin asks 2 questions:

#1. What valid argument can be offered about one type of firearm over any other is someone doesn't "know what they are doing"?

And #2 is there anyone that believes someone "looking for that noise" with a handgun is going to be more effective than someone looking for that noise with a rifle?

As a former Military man with a lot of experience in several different countries in 3 continent's I can assure you no nation and no war-lord ever arms it's fighters with handguns when they can get long arms. There is a reason for that. Even the invention and issue of the M1 Carbine in WW2 was because of the very reason I am pointing out here. The little carbine was not a super "man stopper" but it was FAR easier to make hits with even in urban combat, room to room, than the 45 auto pistol. That's with some training. Would you think that with NO training the pistol would be easier or more effective?

Having been an adviser and an instructor for troops and civilian populations (A continuation of the "Hearts and minds" from the Vietnam years and following) I have NEVER seen even one student, from the 100% untrained and having never touched a firearm in their life, all the way to full time professional soldiers and police, who could make hits on an average with ANY handgun better then they could with an AK, AR FAL G3 or for that matter, a 10-22 Ruger, a marlin M60 a CZ 22 auto rifle or a Winchester M94 in 30-30. Not even one!

ALL militaries issue rifle instead of handguns, including to those troops who's MOS is is 100% based on dynamic entry and/or holding secure rooms against enemy incursions. That's 100% There is a GOOD reason why.

So I do agree with you about those that are 100% untrained, and 100% set in their minds not to train. And there are a LOT of them.

But that is 100% NOT a discussion about guns. That's about people. And having trained probably 2500 people that never touched a gun in their lives until I was sent to them, again I can assure you that with 3 hours of introduction and basic training ALL of the were a LOT better with rifle then they were with handguns, and in 40+ years I have never seen even one exception to that.

I was once an extremely good hand-gunner. I shot live birds out of the air with revolvers and I did it in front of many witnesses many times, and yet at my peak I could do better with a rifle then a handgun. Same with every top shooter I ever met. Same with every average shooter, and same with every "green-horn" untrained shooter.

Dead people don't fight at all. Making the first hit is the most important thing, and the tool that is easiest to do that with is a long-arm.

Can a long-arm be taken from the defender? Yeah,--- if the enemy is well trained, but so can a knife. A knife is the hardest and MOST dangerous weapon you can try to take from an enemy at wrestling distances, but I still don't recommend knives as the primary weapon (I bet you don't either) because the better weapon (a short rifle or shotgun) make is a LOT harder and a LOT more dangerous to get that close without getting killed or severely wounded. If getting the weapon "taken away" was a real consideration, a knife in each hand would be the most recommended way to arm oneself. Such a recommendation is as ridiculous as it sounds because it ONLY becomes a force to be reckoned with when an enemy is at touching distance, and also doesn't have any weapons himself. Not all that likely, is it?

So the logic of a long-arm being "too easy to take away from the defender" (wanna try it if failing means certain death and the one with the long arm is going to shoot you the second he sees you?) falls down when you understand that in the last 200 years we have plenty of wars and degenerations of civil societies to study and analyze, and not once can we find a place or time where those who die if they loose would give up a rifle to get a handgun, with the exceptions of tunnel rats and those who engage in life and death struggles at bad-breath range. Considering the OP was asking about small women, and we speak of very old and weak people in this thread, the point of the discussion is NOT about the deadliest warriors for "zero inch range combat".

Dead enemies don't fight at all. Only hits count and deadly hits count the most.

As far as the SA revolvers go, I do agree that they are the easiest handgun to learn to make hits with for the small, and the weak (actually for the big and strong too) not just because there is not stiff trigger pull, but because the grip shape doesn't' hurt the hand of most small people and weak people. If a person is bothered by recoil even from a standard frame DA 38 special and a 4" barrel, if that is painful to them, put a Ruger 357 Black Hawk in their hand loaded with the same ammo and suddenly they are not hurt at all, and they start to enjoy shooting. Weather they think of it as training or not, shooting because you enjoys it IS training. Not the high-speed low-drag Military or police training we usually associate with the word, but someone learning how to shoot well is always a good step in the right direction. The BIG step is the decision and mental attitude training that comes from someone that can tell you how it is to have to kill people in defense of your life, and that is about mindset.
I teach students that the GUN IS NOT THE WEAPON! IT'S JUST A TOOL. YOU ARE THE WEAPON!!!!

Any gun will do if you can and will do the job with the gun.

So the idea that there is a segment of the gun owning population out there that is 100% incompetent is true. And until they admit they are incompetent and need training there is nothing you or I can do for them. The ONLY thing I ever learned, starting at the end of the Vietnam era to this vary day, about those that can't and/or wont train at all is to tell them to get a rifle or shotgun.

I place their chances at winning a life and death fight at only about 20 percent if they have a handgun, and about double that if they have a rifle or shotgun. Most "successful use" of firearms by citizens against criminal is because the criminal won't risk being shot if he has another choice. Hit one even "around the edges" and they know you WILL shoot (again) and you WILL kill them if you are giving a better chance. So they usually decide to not give you another chance.

Most civilians win because the criminals decided to quit. If the criminal really want to kill a rank novice armed with a handgun the novice has about a 20% chance, and probably a 40% chance with one armed with a shotgun or rifle. In some cases the criminal is also killed or wounded, but that won't help the dead good-guy.

But if you want to get your odds up to the high 80% or better, it's about training, not tools.

A kid who shoots quail with a shotgun is not "trained for combat", but if such a 12 year old decided to fire his shotgun at a bad-guy it's VERY likely the bad guy is going to get hit. No SEAL or Ranger training here, but the kid is trained to shoot well. If you give him the training of his mind to know when to shoot, such a 90 pound 12 year old girl is a VERY deadly enemy to the 275 pound bad-guy armed with a pistol or knife who is trying to break in. If that shotgun, just a 410, loaded with lead #4s is used by someone who has skill and has the mindset to kill you, the bad guy is is REAL danger of being very, very dead in the next few seconds. When my adopted daughter was 14 she could hit running rabbits with a 30-30 Winchester. She was cool under pressure and I thought her about fighting from the time she was 11. I would bet any amount of money that if she had 2 seconds to prepare for a home invader when she was 14 years old, that it would be a very very very lucky bad guy that didn't end up dead in about the next 2 seconds after she got that initial 2 second warning. She was 14 then, 89 pounds and was probably one of the last people in the town a criminal should try to break in on. She was not mouthy and would not speak of it to anyone but me and her mom but I know what she could do, and I know what she WOULD do if she was pushed into a corner. Jack rabbits running away at 35 MPH, dodging and jumping around brush usually died when she fired. I'd bet a man moving toward her (a big target and getting bigger) at 4 MPH would not have a good day, and a 30-30 deer killer placed in the middle of him is not going to make him healthier or faster.

Fighters FIGHT!
Guns are simply tools.

Use the tool you can use the best. Have the correct mindset and you win in the large majority of the fights. If you don't have the best tool, FIGHT BETTER then your enemy with any tool you can. But if you have the correct attitude and can control your fear you win in probably 19 times out of 20.

The 20th.................. Well sometimes it's God's timing to take you home. No training and no gun is 100%. You can't defeat bad luck. But you can lean the odds heavily in your favor by having the correct mindset and vary often that is a few hours of shooting and about 20 hours of schooling about what fighting is, what it's not, when to do it and the reasons why. What is the "go switch" or "Green Light" and how to recognize and realize it, AND NOT HESITATE WHEN YOU SEE IT!

That's training!