What is the old adage, 2 seconds, 2 shots, 2 feet!
I believe it's the Rule of 3. That is, 3 shots, 3 seconds and 3 yards.
Since everyone here is still posting, I assume that their arms have been sufficient to keep them alive.
This is an EXTREMELY poor argument.
Let's say I start a thread on using nail clippers for self-defense against lions and the thread degenerates into an argument with some pointing out that nail clippers are a bad choice for defense against lions and some supporting my choice. Would it make sense for me to point out that since there were people supporting my choice and none of them had been killed by lions my choice must be just fine?
Of course not. The fact that they're alive has far more to do with the fact that they haven't had to use their nail clippers against 400lb felines than it does to do with the suitability of nail clippers for lion defense.
I think we all have merit in what we believe...
That's not how it works. In real life, strong opinions and beliefs don't change the facts. Even if EVERYONE really likes something or strongly believes something, it won't make it true if it's not. It won't give it more merit than it already has. It won't make a tool better for a job than it really is. It won't make a gun more or less suitable for self-defense than it really is.
...we should probably spend more time trying to keep the anti'gunners from taking our rights...
This is a red herring. No one on this thread is trying to take anyone's rights nor is this thread likely to divert anyone from their normal level of pro-gun activities.
Trying to bring gun rights into this as if it changes the facts about the suitability of an ignition system that became obsolete in the late 1800s for self-defense is not productive. It's simply a way to deflect the discussion away from the pertinent facts.
Can a percussion cap revolver work as a self-defense tool? Sure it can. It was used for quite some time before the self-contained metallic cartridge displaced it. Same could be said of bows and arrows and spears. They worked just fine, but they were supplanted by superior systems just as blackpowder and percussion cap ignition has been supplanted by modern propellants and self-contained metallic cartridges.
A person armed with a percussion cap revolver is certainly armed and capable of self-defense, but that doesn't mean they're as capable as they could be.
Now, that could be said of virtually anyone, given that we all draw the line somewhere. So where does it make sense to draw the line? It depends on the circumstances. Different people will draw it different places based on what they know about, what they believe, how they are restricted, etc. But the fact that different people make different choices doesn't mean that they are all equally capable of defending themselves.
I have a friend who fences for sport and hobby and uses a saber as a home defense weapon because he's comfortable with his saber but not with a gun. That's his choice and maybe it makes sense for him given his skills and beliefs. But none of that changes the fact that if he's faced with armed attackers beyond the reach of his saber, he's going to get shot a lot and won't be able to do anything at all to defend himself.
I don't try to talk him out of his choice, but I also wouldn't stand by and let him claim that he's just as capable with his saber as someone with equal training would be with a gun; because he's not. There's are reasons people stopped using swords for self-defense and switched to firearms. And there are reasons why black powder and percussion cap ignition fell out of favor when modern propellants and self-contained metallic cartridges came on the scene.