I would think that in a "repelling an attacker" scenario, one would be fairly close. Otherwise, how would one know one was being attacked? I mean, yes, bullets flying by would be a clue (though it might just be someone else defending herself from an attacker down the block) but I got the impression McCardle was envisioning "woman with gun defending herself against attacker without gun."

So if one is fairly close, perhaps only moderate accuracy is required. Though I'm not sure I could achieve even moderate accuracy in a hot state (in fear for my life) and I hope nothing less than fear for my life would make me deliberately try to shoot someone. On the other hand, being fairly close might tend to reduce the "dilution of distance" on the violence one is committing.

But in the end, it seems to me that McArdle is presenting herself as an economist, and economics is not about what ought to be, it's about what *is*. So the question becomes "Do women purchase more handguns than men?" If the answer is no, easy availability of handguns does not differentially benefit women, and it's not a feminist issue.