No argument there, but those points are completely moot and don't address the challenge I raised for you, and others who share your view point.

I've seen these stats trotted out any time folks talk about effectiveness of auto fire vs. slower cycles - usually the "historian" touts out the stats from the Civil War, that over 7 million rounds were fired at Gettysburg to kill ~50,000 soldiers, good for about 140rounds per casualty. Or that the Union commissioned 470 million rounds, and the Confederacy commissioned 70 million rounds (540 mill, for those counting), and only ~625,000 men were killed, good for 864 rounds per casualty... Of course, there's the obligatory statistic from Vietnam of ~52,000rnds/casualty as well... These "historians" tend to cite 864/kill is a lot lower than 50-100,000/kill, so of course, lower round counts are more efficient.

What they don't acknowledge is the cyclic and reload rates, AND they absolutely neglect the SOLDIERS KILLED/engagement statistics. Firing only 860 rounds per kill in the Civil War sure sounds great, until you recall we suffered more casualties in that war than in any other engagement, EVER. So would you rather save money on a low round count and lose another 6% of the US population, or rather run a higher round count and lose less American lives? I know which scenario I'd prefer.

I ask you - as I did previously - prove to me that guys are disabled from "spraying and praying" simply because they have a revolver instead of a pistol?

That's the part I don't buy. If a shooter draws a 642 and pulls until it goes "click," they're not more apt to hit something than a shooter with a G19 which does the same. The only difference, in the end, will be that one fired 5 and one fired 15.

I'll also contest - do you really feel that war fighting round count statistics are applicable for self defense? Most self defense scenarios are NOT battlefield "firefights," to which I assume you'd agree. "Suppressing fire" and "covering fire" aren't common for a self defense scenario, nor is machine gun fire (or any other fully automatic or burst fire, for that matter), nor are 100-600yrd ranges, nor is disabling of artillery or vehicles, nor having an entire war fighting force at your side, nor having an entire war fighting force in front of you... We're talking about self-defense scenarios, and concealed carry handguns, NOT talking about battlefield efficiency. If we were, we wouldn't be talking pistols at all anyway, and certainly not talking about revolvers...

Maybe I'll ask it to you this way - for your personal experience, knowing what little I do about you - since you drop the "have you been in a firefight" gauntlet, I assume you HAVE, and knowing you carried automatic rifles when you were - As a shooter who I believe would otherwise be responsible with your round count, did carrying automatic weapons make you "spray and pray?" Or did you remain to be responsible with your round count? Or were there battlefield situations which dictated rounds downrange which didn't necessarily have ONE recipient's name in mind when it was fired?

I will readily agree, a shooter who intends to make the most of his shots, regardless of what he's carrying, would be more apt to worry less about round count, making a revolver a more viable option IN THEIR MIND, and I'd agree, someone who isn't confident in their shooting ability and feels they, "need every round they can get," will be more apt to carry a pistol. But that's about the mentality of the shooter, not about the handgun they're carrying. In this case, A leads to B, B doesn't cause A. Guys who want to spray and pray might pick a pistol, but picking a pistol - IN NO WAY - makes a shooter spray and pray. It simply gives them more option to do so if the situation so dictated.

So again - if you or anyone else can prove to me that carrying a semiauto materially makes a shooter less responsible with their shots (more apt to spray and pray), or equally, prove to me that carrying a revolver materially makes a shooter MORE responsible with their shots, then I'd change my opinion.