This is a ridiculous analysis. LEOs are paid to intentionally enter dangerous situations, sometimes with multiple armed assailants. The average person can raise or lower their statistical probability of attack by more than a lone assailant with personal choices.
I do not choose to enter situations which would expose me to multiple, armed assailants and most assailants will run when confronted by even a single armed civilian.
13.5 rounds means absolutely nothing if a person can’t hit the target under stress with 3, so any analysis must be weighed not only with personal choices, but training...including stress/fear situations for which most people are ill-equipped.
In the latter, a 30-round mag in a machine pistol would be less effective than a snub-nosed .38. We also never hear about the cases in which there was an armed civilian but they made a choice - fear or otherwise - not to engage.
Thus for more most people statistical probability demonstrates that it comes down to not only the choice to carry, but the choice to engage and - most pertinently - to kill, for which the number of rounds means absolutely nothing when weighed against the ‘between the ears’ & ‘gut’ factors...all of which presume good choices & situational awareness...the latter of which is appallingly-lacking for most people who carry.
The number of rounds to carry is dependent upon far more factors than being discussed.
.02
“”This is a ridiculous analysis””
Yes it is.
There have actually been quite a few threads on FR about that.