So many of our discussion, especially if self-defense comes up (two legged or otherwise, and god save the thread if someone mentions bruins) and everyone rolls out their favorite long-odds worst-case scenario that they use to drive their selection.
Based on the statistics I have seen, pretty much any scenario that requires a citizen to fire a gun in legal self-defense could be described as a long-odds, worst-case scenario. I understand what you're saying, but it's important to get that particular fact out in the open.
That fact means that when a bunch of folks who regularly carry a loaded firearm talk about the potential uses of it, it's reasonably accurate to say that everyone in the discussion is preparing for a long-odds, worst-case scenario. Once we understand that, then it's all just details from that point on.
There's a second thing to keep in mind.
The nature of humans is that we rationalize very effectively, often without realizing that we're doing it. So once we have made a decision on what to carry, from that point on, we're more in the mode of defending our equipment than in the mode of looking at it with a critical eye. Worse, because we're so good at rationalizing things, we often end up defending our choices using arguments that have nothing to do with the real reasons we made those choices.
For example, I'm thinking of a guy I know who carries. One of his carry guns is a small DA/SA, decocker/safety, hammer-fired, stainless steel, 7 shot, .380ACP pistol. I know for a fact, that he bought this gun many years ago and I also know how he picked it. He looked through one of the big, nearly exhaustive buyer's guides that some of the popular gun rags used to publish now and then. He looked for the smallest stainless steel .380ACP pistol he could find in the guide based on the dimensions published in the buyer's guide. However, if you were to ask him today why he carries it, he would almost certainly talk about why he likes the safety, how the stiff DA trigger is actually an asset for the way he carries it, how accurate it is, etc. He would probably talk about other carry pistols and why this one is a better option for him. I'm about 99% sure he wouldn't tell you how he actually made his purchase decision 3 decades ago, nor would he mention most of the carry pistols he would compare it to today weren't available when he made his decision and so their features didn't even enter into his decision-making process.
Ok, back to long-odds, worst-cases and how rationalization applies. We tend to defend our actions because that's how our brains work. Our brains do things for us, and when the value of what our brains do is questioned, our brains immediately explain (rationalize/defend) their actions. And they're really good at it. For example:
What I if told you,
you read the first part
of this sentence wrong?
The first thing your brain does when you get to the punchline is to tell you that it was right and the punchline is wrong. That's the way our brains work. In this case it's pretty simple to go back and prove that your brain was wrong. In more complicated situations, it may be so difficult that it's almost impossible. There's simply nothing that will convince us that we (our brains) are wrong and we go on forever believing that the rationalization/defensive process is reality, and not just an automatic function of our brains.
So, regardless of how you (your brain) came up with what you think is a reasonable scenario to prepare for, you're going to defend it pretty strongly. And you're going to argue that other scenarios that other brains think are reasonable aren't reasonable. While the other brains are doing the same thing.
This results in a strong tendency to automatically divide everyone in the discussion into three groups.
Group 1. Well-adjusted, reasonable people like me who make the same decisions and choices I do.
Group 2. Paranoid people who are clearly afraid all the time and therefore choose to carry a larger gun, with more rounds/reloads than I do and who train more than I do.
Group 3. Ignorant sheeple who choose to carry fewer rounds than I do and who train less, and may not carry as regularly.
Anyway, that's why such discussions tend to play out exactly the same way every time. If there were really a lot of rational thought taking place, then new data, new evidence would make the discussions play out differently. But there's not, so everybody falls into their normal positions which are insulting to most of the other folks in the discussion who are similarly entrenched and dismissive of opinions other than their own. Eventually someone goes over the line and says what they're thinking and it gets locked until the next time.