The THREAT of deadly force is often sufficient to stop further violence from occurring, without the need for the actual APPLICATION of said force.
During my tenure with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, I “drew down” on suspects more times than I could possibly count and that threat of deadly force was enough to get things under control. I only had one instance where I actually had to apply it with my sidearm.
The civilian use of handguns for defensive use tracks that same paradigm.
The most powerful handgun in the world is a worthless paperweight if one can’t shoot it well.
I’d rather not get shot, obviously, but if I am going to get shot, I’d rather be shot by someone who can’t hit the broadside of a barn with a .45 ACP than someone who can X-ring a whole magazine from a .380 or a .22 WMR. The most important aspect of handgun effectiveness is shot placement, in my not so humble opinion. Secondly, the handgun you have on your immediate person is more useful than the handgun that you do not. The smaller, lighter, and less obtrusive it is, the more likely one is to have it on him or her, all of the time.
9mm was good, clean, wholesome fun in the Beretta 92F I was issued when the LASO went from wheelguns to 9mm pistols. A 92F is not fun to pack around for 10 or 12 hours in a wokday. A Bersa Thunderer is more fun to pack around, but if such a thing were offered in 9mm, I wouldn’t have much fun shooting it. In .380, though, it was a hoot, and accurate enough to head-shoot rabbits with during the hunting season.
I carried a Bersa .380 as a back up piece during my tenure in law enforcement. I wouldn’t have bothered if I didn’t think it would work. If things devolved to the point where I was relying on it to keep on living, it darn sure needed to be capable of ending a fight.
If you wouldn’t want to get shot in the heart with a .380 ACP, you’re not alone. Most people are smart enough to not wish to be on the recieving end of one,