I do not agree with the video. People have been shot with a .22 and not known it. I seriously doubt anyone has been hit with a 45 acp or .44 magnum hollow point and didn't know they had been shot. It isn't just about how fast a shot kills, but it's deterrence, and how disabling and distracting it is. If hit in the right lung thru a rib by a 45acp the person is less likely shooting as accurately than if hit with a .32 short. If hit in the arm by a .44 magnum that person probably won't be as good in an attacking knife attack than by a .380. Even how loud the blast sound coming at the attacker is can be a factor.
He disregards clothing penetration capability, the ability to break or break thru bones, whether the person's spine is damaged or not - and how much, whether the round can penetrate a skull, the size of the hole ripped in a person's aorta or throat, whether a bone joint is shattered to unusable, how quickly a heart stops functioning to unconsciousness, how fast the person bleeds out etc.
He also asserts that all defensive usage of a firearm outcome is based upon how fast the person can draw and shoot accurately. He is completely wrong. Police who are shot and killed in active shooter surprise situations has been extensively studied - with these increasingly on video. What they found is IF the officer under fire first responds by running away from the shooter towards shelter such as his cruiser, he is overwhelmingly more likely to live than if his first response is to go for his gun to return fire - being a closer and stationary target.
In my opinion, the closer the attacker or shooter, the larger the caliber. As the distance increases, more bullets fired faster accurately matters. So against an attacker with a knife at 10 feet ideally I'd have a bulldog 44 magnum or 45acp with hollow point shredders. However, at 50 feet a double stack 9mm makes more sense.
