I always find it interesting when people reference the relative unlikelihood of needing their gun as justification for shooting one that may be inadequate. If one lived in a war zone, one would want a full-size high capacity gun, but if one lives in suburbia, a 5 or 6 shot, small caliber gun is fine.
But whats the difference? What gun you carry only matters if you have the need to use it to defend your life. In that moment, it doesn't matter if you are in Kandahar or Baltimore, you want a gun that you can use to save your life. If you don't think you'll need a gun, that is relevant to the choice of whether to carry a gun at all. If you are carrying it, you are preparing for the possibility of needing it, and if you need it why would you want to be limited to such a tiny weapon?
Just my opinion. I still of course think it is better to carry the LCP than nothing. I just don't see why a subcompact 9mm can't fill that role much better for the vast, vast majority of people.