22LR Carry

[bugout]

all i ask is to support your opinions or offer some info (like stats, stories, news articles, etc)... the only attacks i have made were on strong, unsupported opinions or replies to attacks made on my posts.

i have received 3 pm's (2 appear law enforcement and 1 unknown) giving very detailed info on shootings they witnessed or investigated or treated. it was very good info and they asked me not to post. it was a mix of calibers and results, ideally we would have more of that in the thread.

[bugout]

The attempt to insult by using the term "Fudd" (you're spelling it wrong, BTW) is just as absurd as the argument that 22 is a good choice for self defense.

I don't think you understand what a Fudd actually IS, because nothing here is even remotely close to "Fudd-think".



The whole premise of this thread reminds me of something like you claiming that a Volkswagen Beetle is a GREAT choice for an off-road wilderness adventure trek vs literally every other purpose-built off road vehicle ever built - just because there's documented evidence that TWO PEOPLE have actually succeeded in somewhat accomplishing the task - only needing to be towed out by 4x4s at the very end.
And learning that you drive a Volkswagen Beetle.

so... you are wrong... twice actually.
there are 2 d's in some spellings and there is also 4 alternate meanings (#2 applies here)

Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory)
1- A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles. (derogatory)
2- A bumbling and ill-educated person.

source: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fud...ated%20person.

this also precisely my point ppl post with no fact-checking or citing of information sources.

BUT...

i get your analogy about volkswagen but still dont think it applies and isnt statistically in-line with the data presented.

it's like fish in a barrel now, this isnt even sporting.

[scruff]

all i ask is to support your opinions or offer some info (like stats, stories, news articles, etc)... the only attacks i have made were on strong, unsupported opinions or replies to attacks made on my posts.

i have received 3 pm's (2 appear law enforcement and 1 unknown) giving very detailed info on shootings they witnessed or investigated or treated. it was very good info and they asked me not to post. it was a mix of calibers and results, ideally we would have more of that in the thread.

Multiple people are telling you the same fact - anecdotes don't prove a thing. You haven't convinced anyone.r

And your data analysis is flawed. Here's an example - I noted that your data shows .22 with a higher success rate when there was a single shot. To me, that makes no sense, and puts the data in question. Your answer to that? "Better shot placement". That was total conjecture that you pulled from your ass. Go ahead, convince me otherwise.

And there was this - your data showed that .22 failed to stop the attacker in TWO TO THREE TIMES as many attacks as the larger calibers. There's your mic drop right there.

But that's just this morons opinion. Your so full of yourself that I'm sure you'll set me straight.

[scruff]

so... you are wrong... twice actually.
there are 2 d's in some spellings and there is also 4 alternate meanings (#2 applies here)

Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory)
1- A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles. (derogatory)
2- A bumbling and ill-educated person.

source: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fud...ated%20person.

this also precisely my point ppl post with no fact-checking or citing of information sources.

BUT...

i get your analogy about volkswagen but still dont think it applies and isnt statistically in-line with the data presented.

it's like fish in a barrel now, this isnt even sporting.

OMFG

[bugout]

Multiple people are telling you the same fact - anecdotes don't prove a thing. You haven't convinced anyone.r

And your data analysis is flawed. Here's an example - I noted that your data shows .22 with a higher success rate when there was a single shot. To me, that makes no sense, and puts the data in question. Your answer to that? "Better shot placement". That was total conjecture that you pulled from your ass. Go ahead, convince me otherwise.

And there was this - your data showed that .22 failed to stop the attacker in TWO TO THREE TIMES as many attacks as the larger calibers. There's your mic drop right there.

But that's just this morons opinion. Your so full of yourself that I'm sure you'll set me straight.

it is not MY data it is ellifritz's data which he pulled from actual recorded shootings and has been cited in at least two very reputable firearm publications.
a fact is knowledge or information based on real occurrences - which this data is.. that makes it fact. just because you do not believe it, does not make it not real and does not undue that is it fact.
by contrast, your "facts" are not facts, they are your opinions (they are not based on real occurrences). you have a right to your opinions but that doesn't mean you can refer to them as "facts".

the 22 data - which is not opinion - but actual real occurrences is hard to believe. i agree.
which is why i keep calling for someone who might have different data/ sources to help/ post so i can consider that into the discussion.
but that does not make it opinion and that does not make my analysis flawed just because it is 'hard to believe' 22 had a higher success rate when there was a single shot.
a better argument is the actual sample size - the data is not a very large sample size and i have a problem with that.
also what is missing are the particulars of each instance (this was discussed earlier).
but make no mistake you are - by definition of the word - wrong to say that your reasons cited 'put the data in question'.
my answer of 'better shot placement' was not conjecture at all - the data literally speaks to head and torso shots...
by your own logic the only way that a 22 could have the higher success rate - and it does in this case as it is backed up with actual real occurrences - was better shot placement.
this becomes especially evident when (as many including you cite) penetration/ size/ weight of the 22 round is grossly lesser than the other calibers.
another better argument is that when i revisited the data (facts), half of the 9mm data was ball ammo - not SD specific ammo (i think that does count for something - but maybe not, not sure)

with respect to the 22 failing to stop the attacker in TWO TO THREE TIMES as many attacks as larger calibers... my counter to that, my opinion, is that this is 1 shot.
i would argue (my opinion) that this number dramatically (non-linearly) increases as shots 2, 3, 4 etc make contact to head/ torso -
which based on my own shooting experiences, I can easily land 3-4 shots of 22 accurately as compared to 1 going on to 2 shots of 9mm. (which is subjective but based on real occurrences by me with a shot timer).
a better argument to that is... well what if you only get 1 shot and that is it... or what about shooting under duress and stress, can you still do it. i do not know and i hope i do not find out.

another pro argument for 22 not yet discussed nor posted is the ability to quickly squeeze off rounds accurately one-handed vs larger calibers - does that matter, in an SD scenario, my opinion is that it does.
this is also not presented in the data that i posted - how many were 1 handed shots and what were the ranges of these encounters... i do not know, i would like to know.
also what was the mean age/ health of the victims - could be relevant.

im trying here. i want this to be meaningful. i am very interested in all of this.

[djeuch]

Distill this down, and there's no convincing logical argument against:

1x.45ACP > 1x9mm > 1x.22LR

That's not under debate. But note these are all 1x values, and don't take into account that any firearm is better than no firearm.

IMHO: I carry 9mm. It's the right mix for me between stopping power (1x) and capacity (multiple targets), although I sometimes carry .45ACP. Personally, I'm not comfortable with .22LR as a 1-shot STOP solution (different than a kill) but have entertained it... Hell, I even entertain sub-compact 9mm or (gasp) .380.... but if I can carry a larger caliber, I sure will!

Is .22LR the "best" for self defense? Easy: NO.
is .22LR better than no gun at all? Also easy: YES (but I choose to make my minimum a larger caliber)

Does that mean an NAA .22 revolver doesn't look attractive to me? Sure as hell does! Because, well, any gun is better than no gun, and lets face it, it's very, very easy to conceal!

[Noah_Zark]

. . .
I am sure flawed but my thoughts are (a) time to get shots off and (b) "where you can put them" are what matter most.

Throw some love/ hate at this; I think this round can do it, also a big fan of 22mag (carry 22mag revolver OFTEN) and 32acp . . .

Late to the party.

You certainly have strong convictions in your opinions, no question. Nothing wrong with that.

However you ask for the opinion of others as well as data supporting your position. You make statements that seem to indicate that your position might be "on soft ground," and invite others to agree or disagree by "throwing some love / hate on this." Then when you get some disagreement, you go on the offensive with emphasizing your position and resorting to name calling, your behavior which earned you the infraction.

You started this; you invited commentary. If you don't think you'd like the answers, don't ask the questions. No more personal attacks or name calling.

Noah

[bugout]

Late to the party.

You certainly have strong convictions in your opinions, no question. Nothing wrong with that.

However you ask for the opinion of others as well as data supporting your position. You make statements that seem to indicate that your position might be "on soft ground," and invite others to agree or disagree by "throwing some love / hate on this." Then when you get some disagreement, you go on the offensive with emphasizing your position and resorting to name calling, your behavior which earned you the infraction.

You started this; you invited commentary. If you don't think you'd like the answers, don't ask the questions. No more personal attacks or name calling.

Noah

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.

[Noah_Zark]

Bugout:

Don't go there. As totally expected, you completely ignore the fact that YOU started it by asking for replies and rejecting those that did not fit your own, and YOU started the personal attacks and name calling. Scruff only responded in kind, and would not needed to if only you had politely said, "I disagree, and here's why." It's your behavior, and others in the thread pointed it out to you as well.

FYI, the only person that reported your inappropriate behavior was another moderator, and we had a brief discussion about it. Believe what you will, just modify the behavior.

Noah

[bugout]

the behavior was modified in post #145 BEFORE the flag...

i DID say i understand why i shouldnt name-call and said i wont do it.

the actual first personal attack made by anyone was Dukeconnor not me, it is there in the posts.

and flagging my attack in post #129 is absolutely inconsistent when personal attacks were made against me (not by scruff, never said scruff) way back in post #20, 40, 42.

but i get it, im not allowed to point out facts (that has been shown to me).

you say i reject, i say i have been squarely positional, requesting for someone to present convincing data to change my mind.

potato po-tot-o

i get it.