mosinon

You're the one making the claim, I think you should back it up. I suspect it is completely true by the way. I suspect that there is no magical death pistol in existence. A goodly number? Minimal damage? I'll admit the study the guy did was flawed. But at least he had numbers and methodology. You've got opinion. If I want to kill someone I'd go with a rifle, or an ax. <br>That's kind of the whole point of my criticism. There are plenty of times in life where I have stopped doing something because I got hurt. Say i stepped on a nail. It hurts, blood pain and all that. If it were a life or death situation stepping on a nail wouldn't stop me, I'd keep on going. It's the same with the study. Since the study equates incapacitation with quitting (not the same thing) it is flawed. <br> <br> <br>Well, it was research. The guy did research. you might not like the conclusions, you might not care for the methodology and so forth but it is still research. And even if it wasn't research, even if it was some guy just trolling from his computer citing no statistics and all in a tizzy about the mass of crack addicted meth wonder bunnies with grills and gang banger tattoos who walk through a rain of bullets just for fun on a saturday night carrying a katana wielding member of the yakuza on their shoulders to get to octogenarians relaxing at the country club I'll call it research if I wish. That said, uh, why not criticize the research? All you've done is criticize the conclusions. Do go on. Data collection? Variable control? They are all valid concerns, I'll admit. Wait, let me get this straight. You wouldn't bother posting the study, and to be clear it was a study, but you would waste copious amounts of time deriding the study? A study that was posted not because the conclusions were valid but rather to show that it is possible to do your own study? You also posit that if the study happened to have the same results as an "actual" study it would be because of "random" chance. I am afraid that would not be random chance. Random chance is like we are playing black jack and we both get black jack on the same hand. It is random but it happens. For this study to reach the same conclusion as an "actual" study (as yet undefined) on random chance would be impossible (or nearly so, while the variables were not well controlled there were too many of them to have that happen. I don't feel like running through the calculations right now). What I think you really mean to say is that the if the study done by the author and an "actual" study reach the same conclusions (if they do, I doubt it but you are the one who said it could happen) it would not be due to the studies validity but rather to the illogic on the part of the author. In other words he's right because he got lucky. To illustrate. Suppose we are both presented with a math problem. The problem is 10*x=100 You say "Well, that's easy. You divide 100 by ten and determine that x is necessarily equal to 10" Your answer and logic are sound. I, being the cretin I am, also say the answer is 10 but I say that because X=10 in roman numerals. Honestly, this is what I get out of what you post: I want to be justified in what I carry and this study disturbs me! I'm scared others will read this and be swayed to carry a small caliber!!!!!! It was just an interesting article. Nothing more. So how do you propose we go about the study?

+1 for the advice to Bachman. Cracking me up.

I don't think gang bangers are mythical. I'm sure they are real. And I think carrying a pistol is a fine thing. If it were easier, if I didn't have to go through a class (8 hours! of worthless crap from what I am told) and spend dough I'd do it. I still might do it. But I am going to feel compelled to speak up (it is a failing of mine) if the state video is wrong or something. I am, however, aware of one thing. Gang bangers, mafioso and so forth aren't crazed lunatics like the guy who shot up Va tech or the guy who went nuts in Arizona. Generally, if you are worried about gang bangers or the mafia you're worried because you've become a problem to their income stream. Since I don't sell drugs I don't actually worry about that stuff much. A gang banger is a rational person, he's in it for the money. The lunatic is not. You could probably stop a gang banger with a .32, but it is going to be a lot harder to stop a lunatic with a 22 than a 45. i bet. At least I think so. The lunatics worry me more than the criminals. But how many shots does it take to stop someone who is on a mission from God or something? That is actual incapacitation. That is the question I'd like the answer to. Finding out that answer is probably possible but ethically abhorrent.

Yeah, I suppose. What's a blue million? You have a million blue examples of this to show me or are you talking about stories you heard, scarenarios and such? Wait, are smurfs being dragged into this? Yes, the elusive gang banger who wants to get shot, some kind of weird super warrior. I can't imagine two well placed wouldn't damage something, they've got skin, right? I imagine that two well placed rounds would at least puncture the skin. I would also imagine that blood would come out of the skin. I'm pretty sure I am able to post the stuff I find interesting as long as it is okay with the mods. You got me, I suppose, somehow Well, I'm not quite sure you understood my criticism of the study. Let me try to make it clearer. My criticism of the study (not that I necessarily agree with the conclusion) was that "incapacitation" was defined as "the attack stopped" This definition, I think, is a problem. Stopping an attack is not "incapacitation" stopping an attack is making people wish they were doing something else. In the study actual incapacitation, where they can't do something else, is lumped in to where they quit attacking you. Two swats upside the with a phone book will likely be incapacitating to most people if you went by the study. If, on the other hand, you went by actual incapacitation you'd likely need more than two swats with a phone book. I'm probably not clear enough yet. The club, that lock you strap on your steering wheel is an easy thing to get around. If you really want the car you'll be able to bust it in a few seconds. Yet the club actually works when it comes to auto theft (or so I am told). The reason it works is that car type thieves would rather go to the next car than steal one with the club on it. Why? Less work, same payoff. My criticism of the study is along the same vein. The study doesn't really address stopping power, it addresses the ability of getting shot to make you want to quit. Which, as I noted earlier, is a pretty common thing. You start getting shot and maybe it is better to find something else to do. From this you conclude I am an advocate of some weird pistol myth. Any pistol will do or something. This is untrue. If I were to carry a pistol, which I don't because I am a lazy type person, I would carry something serious. At least a 38 and likely a nine. Probably a 357 to be honest. Why not a 22 short? Well it would probably suffice in all honesty most of the time. But here;s the thing, it isn't like this stuff happens on a daily basis. If I have to pull out a gun things have already gone bad and the situation is already not normal. If I've gone to the trouble of packing a gun I will pack something that will legitimately incapacitate the threat. Cause how do I know that a 22 in the leg will actually send him running? I suspect we agree more than you realize.

As far as I know you need to worry about lead oxide not a lead slug in ya.

Valid criticisms of the study to be sure. The research was "everything I could find" which is fine for the purposes of this paper but not valid for actual scientific conclusions. Problems noted, he left out a very important caliber. That is the 0mm or the 0.0X. You can load the zeros to any pressure you want and the results will be the same. I would wager that the zeroes stopped more attacks than any other caliber. And the zeroes are where the attack stops when the attacker realizes you have a weapon. You don't even have to shoot. I realize everyone wants to prepare for the worst case scenario, a crazed pcp fiend who doesn't even feel the bullets and is only incapacitated by structural damage. That is wise planning but probably not realistic. You probably won't be attacked by a deranged, numb, pcp user. You'll probably be attacked by someone who isn't necessarily rational but also isn't completely crazy. Well, you probably won't be attacked at all so I should say "If you are..." Once people start getting shot the semi rational ones stop. Cause they are getting shot and all. So "incapacitation" as defined by "when the attack stops" isn't really incapacitation. That is the moment people stop fighting. It isn't that the couldn't keep going, it is that the choose not to. Honestly two rounds from a paint ball gun or a strongly worded letter would do it for me. I think the conclusion of the study, if I had done it, would be: Shoot someone twice and chances are they'll quit. Caliber does't matter. But that is just me. The data is there and collected so interpretations should be easy. But my interpretation is that people don't like to be shot. I could be wrong about this, there may be a weird group of fetishists who like to be shot but I am guessing that most people prefer not to suffer grievous injury.

you're geting a lot of advice about the gun but I'll break form and say congrats on the adoption, and good for you for doing it.

I don't care for frothy or Bachmann. I don't like their positions on freedoms and they both seem a bit slow to me. That said if what they want is a constitutional amendment then that is the way to go about it. I like guns and all that, I understand that some people don't. Here it is easy to deride the people that disagree but I will refrain, I will assume that they just feel that way after introspection. So great I disagree. What I disagree with more than their position is how they go about it. They are free to amend the constitution, if you want to take away or add a right that is how it works. Lawing me to death just makes exercising my rights a bigger hassle. I don't imagine that they would just fight for an amendment to stop porno or whatever, I suspect (and I don't know this to be true) that they would misuse the position to law their way to their goals. I don't really like that idea. Especially from those two.

You need a better camera. And some lights. There is no satiating the market for porn.

Sorry that this is happening to you Mouse, best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I searched and couldn't find this (though this is probably a redundant post) so apologies if it has been posted before. The disclaimer out of the way I found this study on stopping power interesting: An alternate look at stopping power As interesting as the conclusions is that the guy basically did his own study which means that if you're willing to invest the time deferring to experts (or personal beliefs) isn't always where the data points.

+1 to that. There's already a way to punish people by taking their property if they are guilty it is called a fine.

If you don't get angry about forfeiture laws you need to reread them until you do. That crap is insane.

Sadly I believe this to be true.

So which program are you guys going to cut:Defense, Medicare or Social Security? cause those are the only three that really matter. It is a tough choice, health care for old people, security or steal money from the people who paid it in. So which one do you choose?