Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And that's the conditionality failure. The probability of average guy Jim sitting at home on his couch suddenly needing to fire more than six shots at threats is vanishingly small.You're really not in a good position to bring that up.
"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."
The probability of average guy Jim, who's just been jumped by a couple of thugs and has drawn his sidearm to defend himself, needing to fire more than six shots is much MUCH higher.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but it absolutely does. You've mis-applied your reasoning to an inappropriately large set of conditions. Everyone engaging in this conversation would innately understand the implication of "...in a gun fight," and disagreeing with the position based on that misunderstanding or misapplication makes no more sense than claiming that it isn't valid because you've included people who don't own a gun at all, or because you've also included dogs and cats into your calculation.I can't stop you from trying, but that example doesn't show a flaw in my reasoning.
So let's set this aside.
Henceforth, when considering statistics of what might happen when defending one's self, let's go ahead and stipulate that we're talking about "...IN A GUN FIGHT."
Last edited: