JustinJ,
My comment in Post #5 was not meant to open a debate on caliber. I never tried to use smalls' situation to support any position. If smalls had been compelled to complete the action he started--putting a few rounds into that other person--that person still would not have been even mildly concerned about what caliber handgun smalls was wielding.
Pointing out that one guy was able to deter an attacker by simply showing part of his gun seems to imply that nothing matters but having a gun to flash.
No, it doesn't. It points to the truth that a person who would be deterred by just seeing his would-be victim's gun will never wait to see what caliber it is.
I did go further to note, in Post #20:
... If he is determined or drugged to the extent that drawing doesn't stop him, then misses with a gun the carrier can't control won't stop him either. And even if the carrier does score non-CNS hits, such an attacker will keep fighting no matter the size or speed of a single bullet. Multiple hits may change that.
I was simply noting--in what most recognized as an attempt to poke fun at caliber debates generally--that the defender's choice of caliber doesn't matter to a human attacker. The defender either : 1) wards off the attack by presenting his gun, 2) misses with a too-powerful round that he can't properly aim, 3) scores a non-stopping hit and faces continuation of the attack, 4) scores multiple hits, generally shortening the duration of the attack, or 5) scores a single stopping hit. What makes that stopping hit effective has far more to do with where it hits than how big the bullet is.
So, I was a little bit wrong, in a way. The attacker would very much like for his armed victim to miss, so he'd appreciate that victim carrying a gun/caliber combination that's too much for him or her to handle properly.
Caliber matters to gun people mostly because we like debating, and it gives us something to debate about. But that was not my intent here.