Posted by 481: Sure, it's fun to play with numbers and calculators, but the only answers that matter are the ones that actually occur.
Well, yeah. The
result is what is important.
The question at hand is , how many rounds should one prudently carry? And no, that is
not an "assumption." It is an
independent variable, to be decided upon in advance. Once the decision is made and acted upon, the number is a fact.
Most of us have been making that decision based on rather subjective thought processes. Few of us have ever really analyzed the "what ifs" that, one way or the other, will ultimately
lead to the "answers that will actually occur", which in this case are whether we will survive a violent encounter.
After endless back and forth discussion of whether five rounds are "enough" or whether one might "feel comfortable" with six, John decided to apply a simple analytical approach to test the reasonableness of some of the opinions offered on the subject.
Fact is, one will never know how many rounds are sufficient until the event occurs, and as I have said before on many occasions,
even then the number cannot be relied upon for a subsequent encounter. But that does not mean that we cannot do some assessment, based on certain assumptions, of what a reasonable number of rounds might be.
Many people have been happy with five. John's calculations show that five rounds is probably far from the best number to head out of the house with, though you say that that was obvious to you from the beginning.
And John's projection only shows a
probability. If one doesn't know how to assess that kind of result, one should not try to use the numbers.
Four rounds might suffice; one may need nine; but how does one decide?
How
does one decide? On anything? With projections base on
assumptions. The key lies in
testing and
assessing those assumptions. That takes up back one more time to this:
...the only answers that matter are the ones that actually occur.
That's true for everything, but one has to make decisions, and to do so one has to make some assumptions. If one is looking for a bank loan or for investments to launch a business venture, one is going to have to make and support some assumptions, one is going to have to show some calculations, and one is going to have to decide upon a plan. And even if one had enough money to start on his or her own, one will have to make a lot of decisions. and those will require projections based on assumptions.
Yes, there will be considerable uncertainty in the projections, and yes, the ultimate results will vary, but no, you won't even get to first base if you simply tell your banker or investors that they will just have to see what occurs when all is said and done.
Or if you prefer--the question of how many troops to commit to take an objective will have to be decided upon in advance, based on assumptions and projections and calculations. One cannot just throw up one's hands because there is uncertainty.
The same thing applies here. One cannot simply say, "I'll just grab the gun the guy at the shop sold me. After all, I won't
know whether five shots are sufficient until they are not".
You have said, "That carrying a 5 shot revolver with no reload is a bad idea no matter the number of assailants I meet requires no model to ascertain." OK. Many people have offered the opinion that, because many gunfights are said to be over in three rounds, five should be plenty. It is for those people for whom John's calculations will likely prove illustrative. You obviously did not need them.
Personally, I believe that John's contribution here has been among the best I have seen. By the way, I often carried a five shot revolver. Not any more.
John's model is simplistic. One
could make it more elegant, and one could put a lot more effort into assessing the hit rate assumptions based on extensive FoF simulations, but toward what end? The uncertainty in the number of hits required would remain very significant. John did not set out to create an accurate estimation tool. He set out to do what he said he set out to do, and I think he succeeded admirably.
