Out of context fail. You are deliberately misrepresenting the OP's comments IMO.
Nothing done deliberately here.
If I am wrong in interpreting the OP, I apologize.
I took it though as..
attacker shot in the heart-->
Tueller's drill version
again... if I took it the wrong way I apologize
No need to apologize, I shouldn't have been so harsh (esp. since I'm not the OP - he is more than able to defend himself
I just honestly can't fathom how you interpreted the first post in this thread as being from the standpoint of a gun wielding attacker. I don't see it that way.
The point of the whole "shot in the heart" bit was that an attacker, even if he takes fire from the defender as he advances, may not be stopped immediately. It would go something like:
-Attacker wielding knife makes banzai charge at defender.
-Defender, either because he was on the alert and already drawn, or by preternatural reflexes, puts a round on target against attacker.
-Attacker, though sustaining a wound, manages to cut defender before succumbing to defensive injury. Both parties suffer grave injury or death, defense fail.
Which is another way of saying that firearms aren't magic talismans and don't always work.
One conclusion drawn from Tueller's experiment, if I understand it correctly, was that officer's faced with a suspect armed with a knife or other HTH weapon, were justified in drawing and holding weapons in low ready if the armed suspect was within a 7 meter radius, just in case.
Less leeway for the civilian defender to draw prophylactically, but it happens. Me personally? If an armed man is 21 feet away from me, my first thought would usually be to put him 22 feet away from me, and if that works I'll try for 23, then 24, etc... I'll keep that up 'til I get to waffle house, order hashbrowns and tell the waitress "geez, you shoulda seen this knife wielding nut I met earlier tonight... Scary!" And she'll say "It's ok now honey, do you need some more coffee?"
Edited for spelling: fathim/fathom