[David Armstrong]

People I know(the few I know that carry puny anyway) carry puny because they will not carry bigger from laziness.

There is always a problem with trying to make broad assumptions based on one's own limited knowledge. Let me ask you--are you lazy? After all, you are carrying a compact Glock .40 instead of a full-size Glock .45.

Then give them all the facts not just your biased version.

Nothing biased about it. If you have actual facts that contribute to the discussion dealing with caliber for non-military, non-LE, typical CCW use, bring them out. The facts are very simple: Caliber is probably the least important variable in the DGU environment. Small calibers and guns have been shown to be just as effective at solving the problem as larger in virtually all DGU sitiuations. Historically there is no indication that smaller calibers lead to lower survival rates in CCW situations.

Personally?? No stats today.....wonder why? You reckon they might agree with me?

No, I reckon it is because you used a term that is rather vague and can be interpreted by different folks in different ways. That requires a "personally" as it is a value condsideration. Lifetime need of a gun also varies significantly based on lifestyle. That is the problem. You keep mixing up specific issues and general issues and trying to treat them the same based on what you wnat them to show.

Your facts are not wrong.

Then why do you keep arguing about them?

Its your aggressive adherence to those stats that I have a problem with.

Strange. The facts are not wrong, but pointing them out to people and suggesting they understand them and use them when appropriate is a problem with you. That is where we differ. I think the best-informed person is most likely to make the best decision as opposed to someone who bases a decision on bad information or falsehoods.

You live in a world of numbers but only when they support your argument.

In a long series of silly things you have siad, that has to be near the top. Not only is it silly on its face but it also happens to be factually incorrect.

Numbers say you will never need your gun.....still you carry (against the numbers).

And that is part of that whole cost versus benefit argument that you seem incapable of understanding.

Then you cry foul when others go against the numbers (and recommend carrying bigger calibers). Thats the nonsense David.

What is nonsense is you making things up all the time. I have not and will not do any such thing. I cry foul when you recommend things and then try to justify that recommendation on falsehoods and/or irrelevant statements.

If making bigger deeper holes in an attacker doesn't equal a better chance at surviving...then I stand corrected.

So, once again we see that in spite of all your claims, when it comes down to actual facts you cannot provide any to support your position.

Come to Florida and lets shoot together.

What has that got to do with experience, training, and actual DGUs? I'll note that once again you have tried to change the subject rather than respond to the issue.

It does but if your cartridge lacks the ability to penetrate deeply or through bones, both of the above are for not.

And there is another claim you make that has no basis in reality. Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone.

Folks who expect trouble only carry puny as a BUG.

Folks who expect trouble generally don't rely on a handgun at all.

...after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun....

You keep making these wildly inaccurate statements. That one, like many others, is just flat wrong.