Maine Resident Kills Would Be Burglar with .22 Handgun, Wounds Another

[TMF]

Bottom line, I've read more stories of folks successfully defending themselves with small caliber weapons than stories of someone being overtaken by the person they just shot with a mousegun.

I'm sure if such statistics existed it would show such a marginal percentage of that actually happening. Paired with the slim chance of having to fire your weapon in self defense in the first place, I'd say that a mousegun is about as likely to get you killed as being attacked by a shark in Utah.

[daddyo]

DaddyO, I think you have a mental block on this one. I can also say will any gun work in every situation? I Dunno

We're not talking about every situation. NO gun is adequate for EVERY situation.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Utah Has Sharks?

[daddyo]

Bottom line, I've read more stories of folks successfully defending themselves with small caliber weapons than stories of someone being overtaken by the person they just shot with a mousegun.

I'm sure if such statistics existed it would show such a marginal percentage of that actually happening. Paired with the slim chance of having to fire your weapon in self defense in the first place, I'd say that a mousegun is about as likely to get you killed as being attacked by a shark in Utah.

Well, if there's such a slim chance of having to fire your weapon, why carry one at all?

[TMF]

Well, if there's such a slim chance of having to fire your weapon, why carry one at all?

That isn't what I said at all. Pairing the likelihood of having to fire your weapon with the likelihood of a criminal overtaking a victim after being engaged by a mousegun is literally one in a million, maybe more. Anyone that carries a .22 shouldn't lose sleep over it. One in seven of us will die of cancer. That's something to lose sleep over.

But since the question was posed, no I don't think it's crazy not to have a firearm in the first place. The chances of having to use one in self defense are low enough that someone who chooses not to own one will have some pretty good odds of getting through life safely. That's their choice and I don't see myself questioning their choice just like I don't want them to question my choice to be armed.

So, if someone wants to have a .22 for self defense more power to 'em. Looks like it had the desired effects in this case.

[daddyo]

That isn't what I said at all. Pairing the likelihood of having to fire your weapon with the likelihood of a criminal overtaking a victim after being engaged by a mousegun is literally one in a million, maybe more. Anyone that carries a .22 shouldn't lose sleep over it. One in seven of us will die of cancer. That's something to lose sleep over.

But since the question was posed, no I don't think it's crazy not to have a firearm in the first place. The chances of having to use one in self defense are low enough that someone who chooses not to own one will have some pretty good odds of getting through life safely. That's their choice and I don't see myself questioning their choice just like I don't want them to question my choice to be armed.

So, if someone wants to have a .22 for self defense more power to 'em. Looks like it had the desired effects in this case.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, unlike some other forum members. You DID say that the chances of having to use a firearm in self-defense is slim, did you not?

And I would never try to take someone's right away to carry any weapon, underpowered or not. I am not arguing the .22's effectiveness in this case. What I am arguing is its CONSISTENT effectiveness as opposed to other choices. That's all. However, some folks are resistant to the idea of having the best odds of survival for some unknown reason.

Edited March 6, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Would you say, that in the unlikely event you were in a situation requiring use of your gun against another person, that the chances of surviving with any gun are greater than surviving without one? Also the difference in surviving with a small gun VS a large gun is really not very big? The only difference I see is small gun BG runs away, Large gun BG MAY be able to run but most likely will DIE?

[RobertNashville]

Gee, I'm disappointed. I thought for sure since you put so much weight on first hand experiences that you would willingly tell me about your own. After all, it's you who's making it an issue, not me.

I'll be happy to recount my self-defense experiences when you do - however, given your reticence to do so I'm suspecting that you have none.

Now, having none isn't a bad thing, quite the opposite actually....it's just that you are SO certain about your "mousegun" stand that I assumed it was based on your real-life experience...apparently I was wrong about that.

You keep wanting to argue ballistics but you are the only one who wants to do so.

No one here has said or even hinted that a 22 is a better caliber weapon to have than something with better ballistics...if I have a choice, I'll be reach for my rifle any day over any handgun caliber. The problem with ballistic is that while ballistics are fine to talk about and compare, ballistics won't save your life.

Ballistics won't "stop the threat".

The will to prevail regardless of what caliber you have (or if you have any firearm at all) is the only thing that can really save your life...if you don't have that; a 50BMG isn't going to be a big enough caliber.

Edited March 6, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Well, if there's such a slim chance of having to fire your weapon, why carry one at all?

Because the weapon is needed, as you are so fond of saying, to "stop the threat". However, most of the time, stopping the threat doesn't require discharge of the weapon.

According to the National Self-Defense Survey (Gary Kleck, PhD) "no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries"; meaning that 92% of the time, the innocent didn't have to fire.

[daddyo]

Would you say, that in the unlikely event you were in a situation requiring use of your gun against another person, that the chances of surviving with any gun are greater than surviving without one? Also the difference in surviving with a small gun VS a large gun is really not very big? The only difference I see is small gun BG runs away, Large gun BG MAY be able to run but most likely will DIE?

As a blanket statement, no, I would not say that. Just as there are varying odds in gambling, there are varying odds of survival.

If everything else is equal, then I will maintain that my odds of survival are greater with one of my chosen service caliber weapons. Is that a guarantee of survival? Of course not. What if your attacker is carrying a .45 or a .40 and knows how to use it? Is your .22 going to get the job done?

[daddyo]

Because the weapon is needed, as you are so fond of saying, to "stop the threat". However, most of the time, stopping the threat doesn't require discharge of the weapon.

According to the National Self-Defense Survey (Gary Kleck, PhD) "no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries"; meaning that 92% of the time, the innocent didn't have to fire.

You can certainly live your life based on statistics if you choose, and that's your right. However, I don't think it's very smart.

[daddyo]

I'll be happy to recount my self-defense experiences when you do - however, given your reticence to do so I'm suspecting that you have none.

Now, having none isn't a bad thing, quite the opposite actually....it's just that you are SO certain about your "mousegun" stand that I assumed it was based on your real-life experience...apparently I was wrong about that.

You keep wanting to argue ballistics but you are the only one who wants to do so.

No one here has said or even hinted that a 22 is a better caliber weapon to have than something with better ballistics...if I have a choice, I'll be reach for my rifle any day over any handgun caliber. The problem with ballistic is that while ballistics are fine to talk about and compare, ballistics won't save your life.

Ballistics won't "stop the threat".

The will to prevail regardless of what caliber you have (or if you have any firearm at all) is the only thing that can really save your life...if you don't have that; a 50BMG isn't going to be a big enough caliber.

I'm truly sorry that you are taking all this so personally. Maybe it would do you good to just step back and take a deep breath.

I have never been in a self-defense situation nor do I want to be. I hope that makes you happy.

It's been my experience that those who are the most adamant that mouseguns will get the job done are the same ones who like to ignore the ballistic evidence to the contrary. So, ballistics do play a major role in your odds of survival, like it or not.

Edited March 6, 2012 by DaddyO

[RobertNashville]

You can certainly live your life based on statistics if you choose, and that's your right. However, I don't think it's very smart.

It's at least as smart as arguing ballistics.

[RobertNashville]

I'm truly sorry that you are taking all this so personally. Maybe it would do you good to just step back and take a deep breath.

I have never been in a self-defense situation nor do I want to be. I hope that makes you happy.

I'm not taking it personally but it does make me happy that you FINALLY answered my question.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I'm sorry that you are taking all this so personally. Maybe it would do you good to just step back and take a deep breath.

I Think you have got to be the Passive Aggressive King.

BTW if an attacker knows what he is doing or knows how to use his gun, I don't think anyone has much of a chance of surviving. An attacker always has the upper hand against an unknowing Target.

[daddyo]

It's at least as smart as arguing ballistics.

OK Robert.

Edited March 6, 2012 by DaddyO

[daddyo]

I Think you have got to be the Passive Aggressive King.

BTW if an attacker knows what he is doing or knows how to use his gun, I don't think anyone has much of a chance of surviving. An attacker always has the upper hand against an unknowing Target.

OK, and thanks for the psychological analysis.

Edited March 6, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

No, I Carry the largest caliber I am comfortable with in the most reliable gun I can afford. .357 Revolver. Then I cross my fingers and do my best.

[RobertNashville]

See my edit above.

What "edit" are you talking about?

The post I replied to and quoted still says (at this moment) exactly what I said when I replied to it.

[daddyo]

What "edit" are you talking about?

The post I replied to and quoted still says (at this moment) exactly what I said when I replied to it.

OK, just wasn't sure whether or not you saw it. Carry on.

[QuietDan]

Oh Bother!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If everything else is equal, then I will maintain that my odds of survival are greater with one of my chosen service caliber weapons. Is that a guarantee of survival? Of course not. What if your attacker is carrying a .45 or a .40 and knows how to use it? Is your .22 going to get the job done?

Individual survival is all well and good. Would never argue against that. Am too ignorant to advise that one weapon would be better than another, though I would prefer to have something stronger than a .22.

Individual survival is not the only salient rationale for personal defense. If enough "good guys" practice self-defense then it enhances safety and survival of the entire group of "good guys" even if occasional good guys get iced. In fact I contend that self-defence would enhance the safety and survival of "good guys" even if the defending good guys always get killed.

Consider porcupines and skunks. Those critters have good defense mechanisms but it is certain that the occasional porcupine and skunk gets killed by a predator. Even the "unsuccessful" porcupines and skunks enhance the safety of the species by discouraging routine predator attacks. If a predator survives killing the first porcupine, the odds are nil that that the same predator will attack another of the species. Even a killed porcupine or skunk reduces the "effective predator" population by one. Or reduced by more than one, if attacked by a pack of predators.

At the extreme, imagine that every law abiding citizen routinely wears an explosives vest-- Every time a law abiding citizen gets mugged, he sets off the vest and kills both himself and the mugger. Because law abiding citizens out-number muggers, this would eventually wipe out all muggers who do not change profession.

That is the most extreme example-- Merely to illustrate the principle. Ideally 100 percent of good guys would prevail. But in our real world of no sure thang-- Even the good guys who do not prevail-- If each would inflict damage to the bad guy then it improves the safety and survivability of the group. If a bad guy blows me away with a .45 but I cap him with a wimpy .22 then if the bad guy survives and does not get caught then he will at least consider another profession.

The more ornery fatalistic view-- If I'm gonna get killed by a criminal then good manners would require that I return the favor! Though of course it would be preferable to live to tell the tale.

edited for spelling

Edited March 7, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[EastHipster]

22 with a Laser Sight.

Hit him in the Leg and Hip.

I'm guessing he hit an Artery

[Geno]

I walk like Chester on Gunsmoke- cause I have a LAAW ( Light Anti-Tank Assault Weapon ) in an IWB Scabbard... I put a rail with a laser & a flashlight on it. Best of all it has an 8 track tape player on the rail that plays ' Ride Of The Valkyries ' when I switch it on...most of the time. Anyway my .22 BUG has finished off more than the LAAW cause I use it during BC and "mop-up" on the moaners & groaners. It will do the job dandy when the projectile is placed right. Been thinkin' on getting a magnum.

[QuietDan]

I walk like Chester on Gunsmoke- cause I have a LAAW ( Light Anti-Tank Assault Weapon ) in an IWB Scabbard... I put a rail with a laser & a flashlight on it. Best of all it has an 8 track tape player on the rail that plays ' Ride Of The Valkyries ' when I switch it on...most of the time. Anyway my .22 BUG has finished off more than the LAAW cause I use it during BC and "mop-up" on the moaners & groaners. It will do the job dandy when the projectile is placed right. Been thinkin' on getting a magnum.

Oh. My. God. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

(Semper Fi, my son's a Marine.)