As I read his post, Tom ("theirishguard") was not contending that there "isn't much difference between the .32 and a full house 9 mm." Instead, he seems to be advising that, "If one has a R9s [9mm] and wants another pocket pistol," one might select the Seecamp .32 over the Seecamp .380 due to considerations of cost, availability, and relatively comparable ballistics (.32 ACP vs. 380 ACP).
I believe in Robert Ruark's advice to "use enough gun," and at any given time I will carry the largest caliber handgun which I can effectively conceal. However, on those occasions when circumstances have required me to carry a weapon chambered for .380 ACP or .32 ACP, I have not felt inadequately armed. If in real estate the rule is "location, location, location," with small-caliber defensive handguns I believe the rule is "placement, placement, placement" combined with double or triple taps.
Without intending to fan the age-old caliber/one-shot-stop debate, the following article contains some interesting statistics in Sheet 1 of Table 2, to which Tom may have been referring in his previous post:
van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time."
Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999, reprinted with express written consent from the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) and the author at
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
