I stopped listening to (convicted criminal who served time) Gabe Suarez when he went off the deep end and started openly discussing assassination on his forum.
Anyway, there's nothing in the article that is surprisingly new. Stats for the "average" civilian gunfight show about three shots fired at close range against a single opponent. Of course, that's just an "average," which means some fights went longer. But I am still waiting to be shown a case where an armed citizen needed to execute a speed reload - with any gun - to finish a fight successfully.
Choose a gun you can shoot well? Geez, no kidding. I do think that a lot of people don't really have an understanding of what good shooting actually is, though, and thus choose guns that recoil too heavily for them to do their best work of combining power and speed. People, especially new shooters, get entranced by gun rag notions of "stopping power" and sometimes overgun themselves with cool-guy .45s and such.
Regarding "availability," yes, you should choose something that is relatively economical to purchase so practice is reasonably inexpensive. But choosing a round based on its availability after some disaster is stupid. Gun shops will be closed, possibility by government edict, and if they aren't the shelves will be bare in minutes. Looters will hit gun shops in the first round, anyway, and fighting off looters for a box of 9mm seems kinda silly. And it's not like the government is going to be driving around dispensing largesse in the form of ammo. Just build a small stock of whatever ammo you like beforehand.
I do agree that the effects of most of the popular service rounds are more similar than different, with good modern ammo. I am perfectly comfortable carrying a 9mm.
I also agree that you do not need a perfect sight picture in close range fights, but Gabe likes to use strawman arguments to attack Modern Technique shooters on that issue. No one, including Gunsite staff and Jeff Cooper, has ever said you need a bullseye shooter's sight picture to hit a guy at three steps. Rather than "instinct point shooting" - there's no human instinct to use a handgun - we need to learn to gain a rapid visual index on the gun in relation to the target. This does not necessarily mean a traditional sight picture. It just means "seeing what we need to see."