[David Armstrong]

Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it.

No, not at all. In fact, it is very easy to say it. I might point out that travelling by ox cart across the country works, but I certainly don't recommend it. I could point out that one can live quite well on a diet consisting of insects, milk, and blood, but I don't recommend it.

You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed.

Given the right situation any pick can be stupid and get you killed. I try to disregard the odd-ball exceptions and focus more on the normal and regular.

That is one of your main problems.

Yawn. I point out a set of facts that are accurate and acceptable in the overwhelming majority of the incidents. You respond "Ah Hah! Gotcha! Here is this one in a hundred incident where you would be wrong, so you are wrong for all the incidents." Sorry, that is not my problem. I would consider the main problem to be those who fail to recognize the big picture and focus on the rare and exceptional to the extent it colors their ability to understand the more common.

But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea.

I don't care if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I care about if it is an effective response to the situation. So what I say is that the .22 has been shown to be effective for most CCW situations. That is a true and accurate statement that one may use however they wish.

You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that.

It is not a good strategy to rely on any single factor. It is a good strategy to understand all the dynamics that go into an incident, how they typically play out, and plan your response around that.

And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed.

I know you hate it, but that is just not true. A serious weapon is not needed most of the time, assuming by "serious" you are talking about full-scale fighting guns. Most of the time the small gun will work. Most of the time ANY gun will work. And sometimes even the "serious" gun will not work.

And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.

Never said you should only rely on the stats, but knowing and understanding the stats help you more accurately determine what the best approach is to your problem. It is not the only factor, but it should certainly be one of them. Again, you probably shouldn't rely on any single factor. But the more you know the better you are.
Only in the world of personal defense do we regularly see people suggest one should ignore the best information and instead rely on guesses and unusual experiences. It is like going to the casino and betting "00" on the roulette wheel every spin.