I've engaged in discussions with people who have guns, and know about guns, in regard to decisions regarding specific guns and ammo.
I'm definitely on the side of bigger bullets and older school designs. I'm also always gonna pick hammer fired over striker fired.
I'm not gonna assert myself as an authority who can dismiss my detractors.
I will say that I'm generally on the side of the character in The Terminal List who carried a 1911 instead of a Glock on the basis of, "If you have to kill somebody, you might as well punch bigger holes." (Not an exact quote)
There is some pragmatism involved, though.
I'm fully aware that a .45 ACP isn't gonna be as accurate from a distance as a 9mm. If I'm gonna try the Dicken Drill, I should do it with a 9mm, because it's a smaller, lighter bullet, with more velocity, that won't dip as much over the distance of dirt forty yards as the heavier .45 ACP will.
The thing is, according to FBI data, the average defensive gun fight happens within three yards, it's over with three shots fired, and it's over in about three seconds.
I'm aware of my personality.
Despite how evil the prosecutors in the Rittenhouse trial were, their point about having to take a beating applies to me. I do think that I would need to take a few punches before I would draw my gun.
So, I'm not thinking about a gun that I can use to take an asshole out from forty yards -- I'm not that good of a shot yet.
I want a gun, and a round, that'll stop a bad guy at point blank range, and won't be taken out of battery if I actually need to press the barrel against the attacker.
I think that my decisions when it comes to firearms have reflected that reality.
If I'm ever going to discharge a gun that's pointed at another human being, it will be because I'm stopping an impending murder or rape. That's usually gonna happen in close quarters. If that's what's happening, I wanna make as big a hole in the bad guy as possible.