If you refuse to protect your kids from harm (including becoming orphans), you are the shittiest failed parent ever.
And what about introducing your kids to harm? (hint: recent school shooting).
Dunno where you're coming from, but my take is this. Schools are disarmed. By law. "gun free" zones. Which in reality means that only the criminals/crazies will have guns.
This is just one of about a zillion reasons why my kids will NOT go to public schools. If no crazy shoots them up, they will have their minds filled with meaningless tripe that drives out reasoning skills.
I have yet to find ONE example of a mass shooting occuring where there were armed people capable of a response. They have all been in places where it is illegal to defend yourself. I regard such laws as an affront to civilised behaviour. Such laws should be ignored on the basis of reality.
Despite the rhetoric in the so-called news, cops do not have any duty to defend you. I am personally aware of at least three supreme court cases where this has been explicitly stated. In point of fact, even if they had such a duty, they would be unable to perform unless there was a one to one ratio of humans to cops.
Making the fantastical assumption that cops had the best interests of the sheep in their hearts, they are at best agents of vengeance after the fact. Given their abysmal 3-4 percent solve rate, they aren't even good at that. Most cases are broken by citizens. This is even obliquely admitted in the shows that glorify the police on ID and similar channels.
In the event of a sudden, armed attack, your two best assets are a cool head and a gun. Contrary to all the bravado and bullshit I frequently hear, in such an event you SHOULD shoot to kill. Not a head shot, though, unless you are insanely skilled. I'm a very good pistolero, and I would still shoot for the center of mass. Head shots are tough, and in that split second decision you do not have that kind of time. If you do, you can probably defuse the situation without shooting. The cooper pattern is your friend. (two to the chest, safety to the head. Quick.) Should the assailant survive, sure, let 'em live. The gun and you did their jobs. Said assailant is highly unlikely to try it again.
Again, contrary to popular opinion, a headshot is not invariably fatal, as demonstrated by the article in the OP. Dead center between or just above/below the eyes, pretty much. Deviate just a little, and the frontal sinuses do their job, absorbing impact and deflecting the bullet. Obviously less likely with more powerful bullets, but the most common pistol is a .22. Nasty little bastard, but not much peripheral damage. It's like being hit with a heavy needle. It either hits something vital or just punches a hole.
For home defense, especially for women, my recommendation is a shotgun. 12 gauge with a pistol grip, as the recoil is less likely to knock her down than a traditional buttstock. With a shotgun, you don't have to be real accurate, and the sound of the slide racking will put any potential assailant in a cold sweat. Up close, there just is no substitute unless you are an expert.
Personally, I prefer two pistols, but I am an expert shot. For my wife, I want a mossberg 500 "persuader" at easy reach.
Hopefully, she'll never need it, and I won't need my pistols except at the range. But it is better to be prepared. I would rather be heard by 12 than carried by six.