I kinda want to get something small like this (Ruger LCR .22 LR) for concealed carry. I've never owned a gun before, and based on my reading revolvers sound more reliable (plus I've always thought they looked cool). Went with 22 because of that time ammo got super expensive and 9mm was ridiculous compared to what you could get going for .22.

But is this gun stupid? Is concealed carry stupid? It's okay if I'm dumb, I know very little about guns other than like the last few nights I've spent trying to research a good, small concealed carry.

  • ssjmarx [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    He talks about the "one shot stop" percentage in a follow up article and concludes that other calibers are more likely to have higher rates of fire than the average .22, allowing the shooter to squeeze more rounds off before the attacker even knows they're being shot at and skewing the stats. In any event I was not basing my comment on that percentage, I was basing it on the overall findings of this and other surveys into real world self defense uses of handguns.

    You seem to have misunderstood the "failure rate" in that article. The "% of people who were not incapacitated" is not a measurement of the percentage of people who carried on attacking their victim despite being shot, it's people who didn't fall to the ground within five feet of where they were standing when they were shot, meaning that about twice as many people hit with low caliber rounds run away from the person with a gun.

    I defy you to find an example of someone who carries on attacking after being shot when the shooter isn't a cop or a troop. It just doesn't happen unless a person is really desperate - a mugger or home invader will always flee from gunshots.

      • ssjmarx [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        No, you’re the one misunderstanding. This is the exact quote on what he determines % of people not incapacitated: “What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them”

        Your quote about “not falling within five feet” is from the average number of shots needed to incapacitate. It has nothing to do with the failure rate. I’m begging you to actually read the article.

        You are being dense on purpose. There is no reason to believe that his definition for "incapacitation" changes between categories - if he defines incapacitation as stopping your attack or falling within five feet of where you were shot, then that also means that those not being incapacitated didn't do those things.

        This thread is going nowhere. Look at this -> :countdown:

          • ssjmarx [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I said

            people who didn’t fall to the ground within five feet of where they were standing when they were shot

            he said

            If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

            I know I didn't quote him directly, but you have to either be a dumbass or an asshole to not realize that that was what i was talking about.

            Enough talking about this old as dirt article, here's a more recent one that demonstrates my point.

              • ssjmarx [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                this is such a simple thing the only explanation for your continued replies is that you're fucking with me. last reply, i swear:

                his explanation for failure rate is as follows:

                What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them

                of course the definition for incapacitation is relevant for the failure rate, because the failure rate is defined as the percentage of people who were shot but who did not meet the criteria for being incapacitated, ie they continued attacking their victim or did not collapse within five feet of where they were shot. His failure rate is not using some other, unstated definition for "not incapacitated", it is using the inverse of the established definition for "incapacitation".

                There's really nothing more I can do but type the thing in the linked page in sightly different ways over and over, and I've done that enough times so I'm going to stop.