It is not the first shot that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not the fastest out of the holster that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not the largest caliber that wins the fight.
But it can.
It is not high Capacity that wins the fight.
But it can.
What does win is the first fatal shot.
Agreed. If there was only one of them.
Regardless of whether you are packing the newest combat Tupperware or your matchlock, 1 shot or 22 shots, the first well aimed shot will always win the fight.
This is just not true.
Ok what good is capacity, if you can not hit your target.
I understand the high capacity argument and I certainly can't find any fault in having more bullets in the mag. Though I don't think the mentality that six or nine rounds is a disadvantage. That is, unless your training dictates shooting as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time. I understand that a real life or death situation changes motor functions and heart rate, but it seems like the article advocates relying more on rapid fire then accuracy. I don't care if you call it "spray and pray" or "shooting the BG to the ground" I am more interested in making my hits count.
:sigh:
Carry what you're good with. Carry what you like. Practice with what you carry.
I don't think the article is about rapid fire vs accuracy, it is more about what really happens in a gunfight. The point being that much of the training and practice (and accuracy) went out the window while under the stress of a real gunfight, so the question then becomes, do you want more bullets for a better chance or not? I think you answered that in your opening sentence.