2. You are FAR more likely to encounter an unarmored bad guy than a bad guy wearing armor. Against an unarmored bad guy, FMJ rounds from a Tokarev or a .357 Sig will be far less effective than JHP rounds from a 9mm, .40, .45 or any other major pistol caliber.
Is it really worth carrying ammo that is less effective against 99% of bad guys on the off chance you might run into the 1% of bad guys who are wearing armor?
When I started carrying, it was 0.1% Odds have increased by 10 times, but depending on the year, the odds of actually encountering a bad guy may have gone down in general. What are the odds I will run into an armed bad guy at all today?
So if you are playing the odds game, it makes it hard to carry a gun in general. I haven't needed to defend myself with a firearm in 30 years, LOL, and certainly haven't in the last 13 of carrying regularly.
You see, your premise statement is just plain wrong. FMJ from the TOK or .357 Sig will be as effective as JHP from the calibers that you mentioned. In fact, .22 lr will. No, check that, a completely unloaded gun well. It would iseem that over 90% of Kleck's defensive gun uses each day are with guns never fired 6800, not that we even know that they are even necessarily legal acts of brandishing and such. So day in and day out, we aren't likely to need a gun and day in and day out, should we happen to need one one the very rare occasion than there is a 90% chance or more that we won't even bother with discharging it. Never mind then getting into the number of rounds that actually hit the bad guys, but we know it is far from 100%.
So you think folks need to pick ammo based on the type of situation where they will be shooting and hitting bad guys. I have to agree with you. That is a valid way to assess what you should be shooting. If you have to shoot somebody and the bullets will be hitting that person, you want them to be the most effective possible. That is what you are saying and I agree 100%. I just can't fathom how I can make a decision very will on something happening in such an incredibly small percentage of my life. We aren't even talking about a whole day in my life because when I am at home, I have a rifle and so that actually then reduces the chances of needing my handgun by at leat half to 2/3 again as I have rifle access that amount of the time.
"If the head is still there"? Where would it have gone?
I think this is again one of those percentage things where they manual is trying to cover things by the percentages. Apparently based on credible reports from officers shooting with bad guys, there is a high enough percentage of the time where they have reported being in such gun fights where the bad guy's head ceases to be present in the conflict whereby the body is still engaging the officers. As such, no improper instruction wants to be give to officers apt to find themselves in such a situation. They do not want officers shooting a location where the head was and should have been, but is a location where the head remains no longer. The wording was obviously poor. To handle such situations where the head is gone but the body remains firing at the officer, the officer should be instructed to simply engage the threat that is visible or of a known location. Engaging threats or portions of threats of unknown locations is not advised.