[Taurus Fan]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

Thanks guys! I found the Taurus at Academy Sports & Outdoors for $209. Yeah. My thinking is that you can plink all day with a concealable pistol, but you cant conceal a plinking pistol, heh.

Let us know how you like the little Taurus .22, I loved mine, just the right size, small and flat enough to carry in a pocket and not bulge at all but just big enough to fit the hand and be shootable.

[JMcDonald]

Yeah I think she will like it! She has tiny hands so I am not worried about grip size.

[Lt.Brown]

I know this is an old post but others may stumble upon it like I did.

In a self defense situation simply stopping an attacker isn't the only consideration you have to make, you have to think ahead to limit your risk in court. In other words although it may take 3 or 4 rounds (or more) to stop the threat using something as small as a .22 it is in your best interest to stop the attack using fewer rounds. Think about this..

Prosecuting attorney: "Members of the jury, I submit to you that this man/woman slaughtered this person by pumping 5 rounds into him, a person who was probably only looking for some spare change.."

Don't bet on getting any NRA members on the Jury, it will probably be people that are clueless about firearms and stopping power.

Remember in Iraq soldiers are having to use an average of 3 rounds of 9mm to stop attackers.

.22 can get you in trouble in more ways than one.

I read a comment about shooting someone across a parking lot, better not try to defend that one in court.

[SightNSqueeze]

Welcome to G&G Lt.Brown. There is something to be said about the number of rounds fired. It is easier to explain why the 80 year old grandmother empied her .38 Smith & Wesson snub-nosed revolver into the chest of an attacker as he entered her bedroom door than to explain why it took a whole magazine from a 28 year old's Ruger .22 Mk. II to down an assailant at the approach to the front porch. The rule that we had in law enforcement was to use only the amount of force; that is to say the number of rounds from any given weapon, to stop the threat. Those were the rules that we were held to, and with a few more liberties granted, the rules that the general public was held to also. The key words are "force necessary to stop the threat." The extent of physical trauma or death should not even be a consideration. When asked of intent, the appropriate and truthful answer should be, “I felt that I was in danger of death or serious injury and I aimed for center mass using only that amount of force to stop the attack.” While it behooves any serious student of self defense to use an appropriate caliber and bullet type in self defense, it also does well to keep the rules of engagement in mind at all times.

[big shrek]

The words, "I kept pulling the trigger until the attacker stopped coming at me" are all you need to know.

[Sam Ruger]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Lt.Brown

I know this is an old post but others may stumble upon it like I did. In a self defense situation simply stopping an attacker isn't the only consideration you have to make, you have to think ahead to limit your risk in court. In other words although it may take 3 or 4 rounds (or more) to stop the threat using something as small as a .22 it is in your best interest to stop the attack using fewer rounds. Think about this.. Prosecuting attorney: "Members of the jury, I submit to you that this man/woman slaughtered this person by pumping 5 rounds into him, a person who was probably only looking for some spare change.."

Nowadays it's pretty much illegal for anyone to defend themselves outside of their own home. Drop somebody with a .44 Magnum with one shot and you can expect similar questions of why you're carrying a cannon. Self defense with a handgun is no longer self defense.

The bottom line is you have to make a judgment call. Which is more dangerous to your person - the attacker or the jury that rules on shooting the attacker?

If the jury is more dangerous, don't shoot. Even if found innocent, the costs of your defense will be enormous - Far more than the attacker could rob you of.

Quote:      

I read a comment about shooting someone across a parking lot, better not try to defend that one in court.

That is correct. And it doesn't matter what you're shooting with.

[big shrek]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Sam Ruger

Nowadays it's pretty much illegal for anyone to defend themselves outside of their own home. Drop somebody with a .44 Magnum with one shot and you can expect similar questions of why you're carrying a cannon. Self defense with a handgun is no longer self defense. The bottom line is you have to make a judgment call. Which is more dangerous to your person - the attacker or the jury that rules on shooting the attacker? If the jury is more dangerous, don't shoot. Even if found innocent, the costs of your defense will be enormous - Far more than the attacker could rob you of.

This is why if you CCW, you always carry a Throw-away cheap Pakistani knife...that way, if they don't HAVE a weapon on 'em...you GIVE them one after you fill 'em with Lead

In California, Washington DC, New Jersey, or New York, however, forget defending yourself, just bend over & grab yer ankles after handing over yer wallet!!

[jashoffa]

Quote:       Originally Posted by big shrek

This is why if you CCW, you always carry a Throw-away cheap Pakistani knife...that way, if they don't HAVE a weapon on 'em...you GIVE them one after you fill 'em with Lead In California, Washington DC, New Jersey, or New York, however, forget defending yourself, just bend over & grab yer ankles after handing over yer wallet!!

Please don't suggest illegal behavior even in jest....

[big shrek]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jashoffa

Please don't suggest illegal behavior even in jest....

That's a behavior picked up from LEO's...except they usually have a throwaway knife and/or a pistol confiscated from a bad guy.

CST's tend to know a planted weapon when they see it...unless the nice officer does it correctly.
When you see 4 Bad Guy left-hand fingerprints on the blade, and four right-hand on the handle...you usually know what's going on...LOL

It's a different world down here in the South.

[jashoffa]

Quote:       Originally Posted by big shrek

That's a behavior picked up from LEO's...except they usually have a throwaway knife and/or a pistol confiscated from a bad guy. CST's tend to know a planted weapon when they see it...unless the nice officer does it correctly. When you see 4 Bad Guy left-hand fingerprints on the blade, and four right-hand on the handle...you usually know what's going on...LOL It's a different world down here in the South.

I am a LEO myself and I know of the practice. It s a bad thing to advocate for as a cop or a private citizen, even if you are joking....Keep in mind this is an open forum and anyone could read your comments. anti-gunners are always looking to demonize gun owners so we shouldn't offer up comments that support their attacks. Further more I take exception to the suggestion that it is common practice for LEO to carry a throwdown. Rather I beleive it is only a select few and those that feel the need to do so should find a different carreer.

[Deep13]

Cheap? Walther P22.