Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creature
You, on the other hand, have been citing historical facts and statistical data non-stop...without actually providing any. So let's see them. As they say in the facts business: put up or shut up.
|
Actually, I outlined the data in my last post. I guess you're saying you don't believe that data, so I'll do two things:
First, where is the data that provides the reasoning for your not believing what has already been provided? If you say you have none, that's fine, but it establishes the point that I have been trying to make. Namely, my opinion is based on data, yours is not. You can choose to not BELIEVE that data or say that you frankly don't care what the data says but it doesn't make it NOT data or wrong data because someone chooses not to believe it.
Second, I'll provide you with some more data from a neighboring thread (Armed Citizen Analysis):
There were
482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis....Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The
average and median number of shots fired was
2....Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion...
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender's initial response was to fire until empty.
Let me point out the significance of this data:
482 incidents, an average of
2 shots were fired and when it was more than 2, the defender appeared to be simply emptying their gun and STILL only 2 (discounting the lion incident) needed reloads. That tells us that the VAST majority of incidents MUST have, by the rules of statistics, included no more than 2 shots fired. Also meaning that by those same rules, a large number of incidents must have been 1 shot fired or the average would be considerably higher than 2. It also seems likely to me that the two incidents needing reloads would correspond to the "firing until empty.", meaning that, in actuality, NO reloads were needed had the defender not decided to fire until empty. I admit that is conjecture but it seems logically consistent with the data.
How much more data must be provided?
Bottom line: Carry your extra mag, really, I don't care but carrying that extra mag is a decision based on want, not need. All the data shows that fact over and over.