rainman
rainman
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1485
July 18th, 2012 at 3:18:55 AM permalink
When those idiots planned the heist they clearly forget to factor in the probability of running into dirty harry.
Fiziks
Fiziks
Joined: Jul 2, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
July 18th, 2012 at 5:18:24 AM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

" Too bad I can't carry at work, the walk downtown at 4am is a bit creepy with all the bums and thugs I have to pass when going to the place I park about a block away. "

Had similar situation in downtown Baltimore many years ago. Martial arts guy at work had me carry rolled up sports section of newspaper. Rolled tight enough to act like a stick and aim for the adam's apple. Never had to, thank God.



This is why I also carry a knife. I always at least have my knife when I am somewhere that can't carry. As long as you're within about 20ft (if they have a gun) of an attacker you should be able to hold your own. I can post some links on the matter later for those that may be interested.
A correct answer is not always the solution to the problem.
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
July 18th, 2012 at 5:27:23 AM permalink
you have got to be kidding,
you've never heard the expression "bringing a knife to a gunfight"..
i don't think it is a bad idea to have a knife,
but i wouldn't want to go up against a gun with one.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
Fiziks
Fiziks
Joined: Jul 2, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
July 18th, 2012 at 5:44:43 AM permalink
Quote: WongBo

you have got to be kidding,
you've never heard the expression "bringing a knife to a gunfight"..
i don't think it is a bad idea to have a knife,
but i wouldn't want to go up against a gun with one.



Trust me, I'd rather have my gun. But I keep a knife with me in case there ever would be a need for it. If I was certain I would be shot (or anything else life threatening) without putting up a fight, I'd definitely have to go for it. I'd rather have the option in the rare case when I would need it. Same goes for carrying my gun. I never would want to use it, but if it's me or him... its gonna be him. It's always reassuring to have the option in case you need it, and in most cases, I would probably choose not to use it. It all depends on the situation that you're in.
A correct answer is not always the solution to the problem.
Alan
Alan
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 582
July 18th, 2012 at 7:11:25 AM permalink
You guys with CHL's should get a kick out of this video-I love it!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 18th, 2012 at 8:58:11 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I have a friend in his 70's who carries a .22 mini revolver just like this one. He carries it his pants pocket and it can't go off because its a revolver.



I am clearly not a gun owner. But looking up a mini-revolver .22 caliber it is $186 and weights 4.5 oz. Suppose I have one or two of these on my person with the proper permit.

The objection to this gun, is that while it is often lethal, it has no "stopping power", so that the guy can still carry out his assault. He may die of his wounds, but you might also.

Is there some legal advantage to owning this type of gun versus a higher caliber? My question is if an assailant starts punching at your head, and if he later is determined to be unarmed and possibly crazy (something you are not sure of at the time). If you shoot him with a 22 caliber, do you fare better in the police investigation than if you shot him with a more powerful pistol? Since the bullet has very little stopping power, what happens if you shoot him twice?

In general, do you think you are better off with a tiny pistol, or one of the umbrellas that are designed for self defense.

Alan
Alan
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 582
July 18th, 2012 at 9:14:16 AM permalink
You shoot to stop the threat, one time, 10 times, whatever it takes. I wouldn't recommend a .22 for self defense use. From a legal perspective I don't think it matters what caliber you use.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
July 18th, 2012 at 2:31:53 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I am clearly not a gun owner. But looking up a mini-revolver .22 caliber it is $186 and weights 4.5 oz. Suppose I have one or two of these on my person with the proper permit.

The objection to this gun, is that while it is often lethal, it has no "stopping power", so that the guy can still carry out his assault. He may die of his wounds, but you might also.

Is there some legal advantage to owning this type of gun versus a higher caliber? My question is if an assailant starts punching at your head, and if he later is determined to be unarmed and possibly crazy (something you are not sure of at the time). If you shoot him with a 22 caliber, do you fare better in the police investigation than if you shot him with a more powerful pistol? Since the bullet has very little stopping power, what happens if you shoot him twice?

In general, do you think you are better off with a tiny pistol, or one of the umbrellas that are designed for self defense.



If you talk to a true "gun nut", and I mean a put-all-the-guys-here-to-shame type gun nut, you'll get all sorts of info about penetration, expansion rates, bullet composition, etc concerning "stopping power". A more general use of the term is simply "what does it take to make the bad thing stop"? I've heard opinions that the .22 is one of the most dangerous calibers there is. As an example, if during a struggle you fire a .45 and hit an assailant in the shoulder, his shoulder will most likely explode. Do the same thing with a .22, and it lacks the mass to punch through things. When it hits a dense bone, it's liable to ricochet inside the person, perhaps into the heart, lung, or neck.

The biggest factors in stopping power are the bullets surface area and speed. Given the same mass, a sleek, pointed rifle round is likely to punch right through a person, transfering little energy to his insides. A big, fat .45, on the other hand, is going to transfer much, much more. Also, given the exact same round, a high powered charge likewise may punch through a body and waste much of it's energy, while a half charge moves slower, giving time for the bullet to mushroom and pull/tear flesh as it passes through. If stopping power is what you want, go big and go slow. Shotgun slug comes to mind.

Given the above, a .22 has very little stopping power. If your assailant is suffering from psychosis, is on meth, or is just really, really scared, you could shoot him and he might not even notice. Fortunately, many encounters are by normal, albeit desperate, people, and will react much like the thugs in EvenBob's video. Just seeing a gun causes them to flee, even though they themselves have one. I'd have to think this wouldn't be true with an umbrella. While it might save you possible jail time if you're succesful in protecting yourself in hand-to-hand combat, there's just too many situations where it'll be useless (like armed combat). I'll take the .22 every time. (In fact, my secondary carry weapon is a .22mag)

The legal aspect is tough, but I wouldn't look at it as you are. Whether your carrying a pitiful .22short Derringer that barely kills a coon even with it pressed to their head, or a .500 Taurus that'll kill nearly every land animal on the planet, if a situation escalates to the point you need to shoot, you shoot to kill. Shooting is a last ditch effort to save your life. You shoot and don't stop unless it's unsafe (crowded mall), or the threat has passed (they're incapacited or flee). It's you or them, and any thoughts other than that (including worry about jail) could get you killed.

My suggestion to those than have guns, even if it's not a pistol and you have no license, just a long gun in a closet at home, is to know your state's laws. In Texas, for example, you can shoot for a great number of reasons, including threats to personal property. In NY,...well, let's just say I'm terrified of shooting anyone here.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 18th, 2012 at 6:58:47 PM permalink
I'm the one that said my friend carried a .22 in his pocket.
He was a young man in the Godfather era, mid 50's. He
says all the wiseguys he knew carried hammerless .22's,
and usually more than one. They were small, cheap, light,
you could carry 3 of them and nobody would know it. All
they were concerned about was close work, no marksmanship.
Stick in somebodies face, in their gut, against their kneecap.
And very quiet, just a popping noise. Nobody wore shoulder
holsters and carried .45's, thats all movie crap.

The .22's had 5 shots. Like the arms dealer in Breaking Bad
says, if you can't get it done in 5 shots, you're probably dead
anyway. Its just spray and pray after that. The stats still
say more people are killed by .22's every year than any other
gun. Hell, the original James Bond in the books carried a .25
Beretta, which is basically a .22...
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 172
  • Posts: 10349
July 18th, 2012 at 7:36:29 PM permalink
From what I understand, it's not just the small caliber, but a small gun is harder to control for accuracy. So, you're more likely to miss your target at the same range -- even fairly short distances (across rooms).

And correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be.
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs

  • Jump to: