22LR Carry

[scruff]

supported commentary...
i went on to further define what i was looking for/ refine the discussion via post #16 "i dont care if you agree or disagree but please bring something to the discussion for consideration - why?"
and again in post #19 "I was looking for some substantial reasons to back up what you are saying bc the stats do not echo it... Where's your data or first-hand observations to support your statement?"
and again in post #21 "you read what you want to read and ignore what you want to ignore... i went on to ask why? and asked you to add to the discussion. every 'opinion' i read like yours has nothing backing it up... teach me, tell me why..."
and again in post #23 "i openly asked for data or first hand observations to back up what you state - i asked you for information"
and again in post #27 "im trying to work this through contrary to some accusations; info like yours, carwash's, other studies or published accounts are what interests me most..."

I see the warning is for post #129 against scruff for the word "moron" I am guessing... the literal only name-calling insult up to #129 posts in thread.

Ok... name-calling no good. Wont do it, understand why.

But I do disagree with the rest of what you say, I asked for "love/hate" initially and very clearly reframed what I was looking for in more than 5 subsequent posts early in the discussion - which were ignored... even still...

I also had a forum member literally wish that someone takes my gun off of me and shove it up my ass and proceeded to make insults about my father and my mental health - but I guess that is ok, I mean that's not a personal attack.
I mean I didn't run and cry to you about like some other ppl. I thought it was funny. But still... no flag there huh? consistent.

A couple of observations -

You made demands on how people were supposed to post in "your" thread. You're not the thread owner, you don't get to dictate the rules. You create a thread, set it free into the wild, and it becomes a living thing beyond your control.

You present your conclusions as irrefutable fact because you think they're supported by one single set of data. Your conclusions are not fact, they're only your opinions, and my conclusions are only my opinions. One of my biggest problems with your data is the nature of the study, mixing police and civilian data. Statistically speaking, that's very risky. The bedrock of your argument is the data for one-shot stops. Are you aware that LEOs aren't trained to take a single shot? They are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, and not one shot more. I like the advice of one respected trainer of mine - "Shoot till the shape of your target changes." You're an engineer, think about that for a moment. You say .22 stops more attacks with a single shot, but the largest population of large-bore shooters are trained to take more than one shot. Certainly you can understand how that training would skew the one-shot statistic.

So tone down the arrogance. I don't have all of the answers, you don't have all of the answers. It's all opinion, and opinions are like assholes, they all stink. Except mine, not so much.

[JDA58]

[bugout]

if you photoshopped that skull on their face to match my avatar thing, then i must say... extremely funny and well done!

[bugout]

The bedrock of your argument is the data for one-shot stops.

From my reformed self, let's agree to disagree... I was wrong to name-call you, I am sorry for that but not my arguments.
I would say that the bedrock of my argument is that caliber (handgun) in an SD role might not matter as much as everyone says it does, and I would say that the only data that I have found to help evaluate that is the one cited.

Yoder snuck in a good post #136 a little while back that said in Boston from 2010 to 2015, there were 221 gun homicides; research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets.
He goes on to cite a study that was published on the JAMA Network Open that I have been searching for but can't find yet. Hoping to expand the archive of information to further assess.

[JDA58]

if you photoshopped that skull on their face to match my avatar thing, then i must say... extremely funny and well done!

WHAT!!! that's not really your face!!

[bugout]

From my reformed self, let's agree to disagree... I was wrong to name-call you, I am sorry for that but not my arguments.
I would say that the bedrock of my argument is that caliber (handgun) in an SD role might not matter as much as everyone says it does, and I would say that the only data that I have found to help evaluate that is the one cited.

Yoder snuck in a good post #136 a little while back that said in Boston from 2010 to 2015, there were 221 gun homicides; research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets.
He goes on to cite a study that was published on the JAMA Network Open that I have been searching for but can't find yet. Hoping to expand the archive of information to further assess.

I found the study!!! here it is... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...?resultClick=1

also found another interesting one but not 22... the conclusion stated, "Inexpensive, short-barreled.25-caliber handguns were the most common weapon type associated with firearm homicides and suicides in Milwaukee during 1990 through 1994"
here is that study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...?resultClick=1

[Driswalds]

Interesting results here. The conclusions drawn on this support what most if not all have been saying.

The results here support the view that the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon had a direct effect on the likelihood that a victim of a criminal shooting died. For Boston, in the period studied here, simply replacing larger-caliber guns with small-caliber guns with no change in location or number of wounds would have reduced the gun homicide rate by 39.5%.

[bugout]

Interesting results here. The conclusions drawn on this support what most if not all have been saying.

The results here support the view that the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon had a direct effect on the likelihood that a victim of a criminal shooting died. For Boston, in the period studied here, simply replacing larger-caliber guns with small-caliber guns with no change in location or number of wounds would have reduced the gun homicide rate by 39.5%.

it also speaks to the importance of head/torso shots if you want to have any "success" w 22lr

[scruff]

From my reformed self, let's agree to disagree... I was wrong to name-call you, I am sorry for that but not my arguments.
I would say that the bedrock of my argument is that caliber (handgun) in an SD role might not matter as much as everyone says it does, and I would say that the only data that I have found to help evaluate that is the one cited.

Yoder snuck in a good post #136 a little while back that said in Boston from 2010 to 2015, there were 221 gun homicides; research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets.
He goes on to cite a study that was published on the JAMA Network Open that I have been searching for but can't find yet. Hoping to expand the archive of information to further assess.

Wait, what? Fine, scratch the word "bedrock". Still, one of your main arguments was .22 was better at stopping a gunfight in one shot. I just pointed out how LEO training skews the one-shot data because they're not trained to take a single shot, and you just "agree to disagree"? You only want to discuss the data when it supports your conclusions, but if it doesn't, then never mind?

OK. Got it.

[bugout]

Wait, what? Fine, scratch the word "bedrock". Still, one of your main arguments was .22 was better at stopping a gunfight in one shot. I just pointed out how LEO training skews the one-shot data because they're not trained to take a single shot, and you just "agree to disagree"? You only want to discuss the data when it supports your conclusions, but if it doesn't, then never mind?

OK. Got it.

i never said 22 is better at one stop shots, never.
the data said that and i actually said i agree that it is hard to believe but it is documented and most of this thread i have been asking again and again for more actual data to evaluate it against - rather than one-liners... but smarty one-liners kept coming, not the data.

then - finally - yoder posted that a study might be found on JAMA; and in typical fashion only i took the time to find it and post it for further discussion. it refutes - does not defeat - ellifritz's data... im trying restraint here but you do not at all read what i actually write.

the LEO data does not at all skew the data... their numbers are included, are you saying that somehow the first shot from a cop's gun doesnt count or that they are trained to shoot extremities first and then head/torso? because that would be the ONLY way their inclusion would skew the data.