Ergo, why not take those odds a step further and defy the slim odds of being attacked by multiple assailants or being ambushed? If I am willing to prepare for the highly unlikely chance of needing to shoot someone (I am), then I will also prepare for the possibility of having to use several magazines.
Then why not prepare for the much more likely event of getting shot yourself? You are more likely to need a kevlar vest than 2 spare mags, and the consequences of not having either of them when they're needed is the same: You die.
There is ALWAYS that next level of threat where someone can say "You've gone this far, why not one step farther?"
The answer is because the odds do not justify the cost. In some estimations, they do. In my world, they do not.
You simply can not prepare for every eventuality.
In the end, I suppose what it's really about is how easy is it? Truly, if I could don an invisible bullet and explosion proof energy shield that could protect my whole family and I could get it for $25, it weighed 3 ounces and no one would know that I had it, then I would.
So, really, it's about the effort and cost. More than a loaded gun is too much effort, too annoying and too much cost for me.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.