Posted by
Moomooboo:
This is one forum with a small microcosm of people. I believe this is what they call anecdotal evidence.
True indeed.
Just because one resides among a group of people who think the same does not mean other groups who think differently do not exist in equal or larger numbers.
Even a quick and incomplete review of other fora, established training companies and academies, books, and articles will show rather conclusively that many--not all, but most--of those who "think differently" have simply not made the effort to inform themselves.
You have one way to thinking, i have another.
That is obvious.
You go through risk management i go by statistics to assess.
Statistical analysis,
performed properly, is the very basis of risk management.
You discount my conclusions and state that i am not listening to reason when there is little evidence that i will ever need a mag. Yours is based primarily off of mitigating a situation which may not occur, mine is based off of situations which have occured.
All risk management involves deciding whether, and if so how, to mitigate a situation that may not occur.
But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so.
Then you look,
independently, at the
next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction.
Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand.
A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do.
But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize?
No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one.
That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across.
Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public.
There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them.