Unfair. It is perfectly logical to assess your risks and equip yourself accordingly. Preparing for a future lethal force encounter always involves an element of uncertainty, but that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable expectations or that the kind of lethal force encounters that our peers have been subject to aren't a rational guide for our expectations.
The use of a firearm in a personal protection or self-defense incident is not unprecedented at all. It is not irrational to expect a similar incident could involve us even if the probability of it is very low. Reloading by a civilian in a self-defense incident in modern US society is extremely rare, perhaps unprecedented. I am not aware of such an incident. The guy who narrates Active Self Protection videos said recently that he has never seen it. I wouldn't say that we should dismiss it as a possibility but that we'd be getting a vastly diminishing return on reloads for risk management. But there is another reason to carry a spare magazine besides capacity and that is in case of a magazine malfunction or damage. If you include the slight possibility of those events and the minuscule probability of a need for additional capacity, a spare magazine could add meaningful value. Another rationalization for at least a single reload comes with revolvers and lower-capacity 5, 6 or 7 round guns. While the probability of needing or effectively utilizing more than what's in the gun during an incident is extremely low, it is more likely that at the conclusion of an incident the gun will be depleted. Having a reload allows one to restore the gun to a ready condition immediately. There is probably less rationalization for multiple spare magazines for a civilian, non-belligerent, to carry on a daily basis when returning home daily, but I don't have any reason someone shouldn't carry three, four, five magazines or more.
If we aren't able to make rational choices, we should all be carrying concealed submachine guns chambered in .454 Casull with 3 spare 50 round magazines, because you never know, and besides, if you go by statistical probability, you won't need anything. I would rather consider that if I have anything I will be better off than with nothing. But if I'm going to carry something, it might as well be the thing that I can easily shoot well so I can make the most of the few shots that it's most probable I'll have a chance to make any difference with. I want the terminal effectiveness to be substantial, but in the city, I probably won't make the tradeoff that super magnum performance will cost me because preparing to meet the Kodiak bear, Cape buffalo in an urban environment or even a bad dude with level IIIA is not only unlikely to pay dividends, but the return on the cost of that is frankly absurd.
FWIW, I carry a revolver and a reload strip. I am hardly unarmed, but am I prepared for a scene from an action movie to explode in front of me? I'll take that chance. Like Jeff Cooper said, "owning a handgun doesn't make you any more armed than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Some folks might walk around with enough junk for a whole band, but that itself doesn't make them any better prepared for a concert.
