In which case, those who were wrong will be dead. Those who were right can say "I told you so" at their gravesite.
I honestly don't think it will be anything like that clear cut. I've already said that a person can do everything right and still end up dead. And I think the converse is also true. A person can do things wrong and still survive if they are lucky, their attackers are incompetent, or both. There was one situation some time ago where a shop owner was set upon by multiple attackers as he was closing for the night. He had a revolver for self-defense and had done a spring replacement "trigger job" but failed to test the revolver in DA. When the balloon went up, he grabbed his gun and started shooting, but the gun had random misfires because the spring was strong enough to work SA but not strong enough to work consistently in DA. He just kept pulling the trigger--click, click, bang, click, bang, click, click, click, click, bang, etc. But he survived an encounter against multiple attackers in spite of having a relatively low capacity gun that was only partially functional.
I don't understand all the pushback on the idea that complying may not result in a favorable outcome. It's fact. Not opinion.
I don't see any pushback. A person can certainly comply and still end up dead. It is true that compliance is the second most "successful" tactic (behind resisting with a firearm) but it is by no means a guarantee of "success". There are no guarantees.
Here's a pretty good treatment of the topic of compliance, resistance with a firearm and resistance without a firearm. He does use statistics--there's really no other way to do it.
Getting Robbed: Surrender vs FIGHT BACK!? Statistics say THISShould You Fight A Robber? CARRY A GUN? Should you fight back against an attacker or robberTo re...
www.youtube.com
There's also some interesting information at the beginning of the video about the firearms used by criminals. Again, the information is statistical in nature--just because something is likely doesn't mean it's a sure thing and the fact that something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.
I'm gonna disagree a little bit here and say that it doesn't necessarily matter so much of one has a realistic view of their capabilities or not -- I'd value upbringing, mindset and experience more. Unless one has faced armed conflict before, the decision-making process typically goes out the window at the beginning of the encounter. Sometimes totally inexperienced folks get very, very lucky and prevail in their encounters. And frankly, if one overestimates one's abilities or skill level a bit, sometimes enthusiasm can carry the day, especially if the assailant isn't anticipating resistance.
What I said was they have a "better chance" of making a good decision, and I think that's true without qualification. I think you are right to note that some folks may not be able to really actually make a conscious decision in the heat of the moment, but some might, and if they don't understand the situation (have an unrealistic view of their own capabilities, for example), they have no chance of making a good decision based on the facts.
You are certainly right in that luck/probability plays a big part in these encounters. A person can do everything right and still die. And a person can screw up and still prevail. All we can do is try to give ourselves the best chances of survival possible by the decisions we make in advance and during the encounter.
I think you are also right about people being better mentally equipped to be in a gunfight after having gone through one. The problem is that not very many people get in multiple gunfights. Which means that the vast majority of people will have to prepare to succeed without the benefit of past gunfighting experience.
Especially when people start trying to use statistics.
You acknowledge that luck plays a part. Luck is chance. The study of chance is statistics and probability.