.22 for defense/house gun. who has one?

[Logos]

Statistically, most successful home defense starts and ends with the showing of a gun.....doesn't matter what kind.

Gun is shown, intruder runs.

So a .22 will take care of most needs.

If your intruder is crazy enough to stay and shoot it out with you with police probably en route.....well, your day is probably ruined and you'll need a little luck to avoid catching a bullet anyway.

I would feel fine using a .22 for home defense.

 

[brisendines]

I can throw rocks pretty hard, and I think I would have no problem putting a rather large rock COM decently quickly. Screw those 230 grain 45s. I got a 3 pound rock.

 

[Boba Fett]

Statistically, most successful home defense starts and ends with the showing of a gun.....doesn't matter what kind.

Not sure where you get your statistics from, but from what I've read in The Armed Citizen, most home defense situations end after the homeowner actually fires a few rounds. Many times the BGs aren't hit or are just wounded and end up getting arrested at the hospital. The rest of the time at least one or all BGs end up dying at some point, either at the home or at the hospital.

Gun is shown, intruder runs.

So a .22 will take care of most needs.

If your intruder is crazy enough to stay and shoot it out with you with police probably en route.....well, your day is probably ruined and you'll need a little luck to avoid catching a bullet anyway.

...the police are en route...

That's probably the best statement for having the best home defense guns and rounds you can.

And I won't be catching any bullets if I put the intruder down first. And better guns and ammunition will help make that possible.

By your logic, if the intruder doesn't run at the sight of your 22lr handgun, it won't matter what you have and you'll just have to hope that the police will save you in time before your already ruined day ends in you catching a bullet...


*edit*
Perhaps you were thinking of BGs hearing a gun instead of seeing one. There are accounts of BGs running away after hearing a shotgun being loaded...maybe that was what you were thinking of?

 

[Logos]

Well, this thread isn't about what's the best home defense gun, now is it?

The Armed Citizen notwithstanding, most intruders run at the sight of a person with a gun.

They never seem to bother to check the caliber.

 

[Boba Fett]

Well, this thread isn't about what's the best home defense gun, now is it?

The Armed Citizen notwithstanding, most intruders run at the sight of a person with a gun.

They never seem to bother to check the caliber.

That didn't really answer my question about where you were getting your "statistics."

So until I have some other evidence, I'll stick with what I've read in The Armed Citizen.

Oh and btw, seems like most of the instances don't involve 22lr...

Well, this thread isn't about what's the best home defense gun, now is it?

I suppose if you want to split hairs, no. It is about bullets. But since we aren't throwing them at the BGs, it does seem like the guns have a role in the thread's discussion...might just be me...

 

[Logos]

It's you.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

If your intruder is crazy enough to stay and shoot it out with you with police probably en route.....well, your day is probably ruined and you'll need a little luck to avoid catching a bullet anyway.

I'd say there's probably a 50 percent chance or better that you can hit the attacker before they shoot you. With that being the case, I'd want my first shot to make sure they can't fire any shots at all(so I don't have to chance getting shot), and therefore, would not use a .22.

In addition, if you are in a shootout, you'll want to stop whoever's shooting at you from doing so as quickly as possible, thereby limiting the time your attacker has to shoot you, decreasing your odds of getting shot. So you won't want to use a .22.

 

[Boba Fett]

It's you.

I suppose we can ignore your previous comments then too:

Statistically, most successful home defense starts and ends with the showing of a gun.....doesn't matter what kind.

Gun is shown, intruder runs.

If the guns have no role in the discussion, and just showing any gun will stop the BG, then an airsoft will work just fine? Right?

Show the toy gun and the BG will run away right? Pretty good thinking there Logos...and it will save all of us a lot of money too...

Oh, and I would point out again that your so called statistics still haven't been posted. I was good enough to say where I am getting my information from, if you want some credibility for your claim, then some links to your "statistics" would be good.

 

[Logos]

An airsoft might work, I'd rather have something that will look authentic and make a bang.

Anybody who's been around gun issues much knows the statistics. They are as I said.

You should stop before you say anything that makes you look any more foolish.

 

[Boba Fett]

An airsoft might work, I'd rather have something that will look authentic and make a bang.

*Laugh*

I thought your so called "statistics" said criminals only need to see the gun. However, since you now are saying that noise is also a factor, maybe a cap gun would be good or a blank firing gun would work best for you.

Personally, I want something to back up the looks and sound. And that would be a big bullet.

Anybody who's been around gun issues much knows the statistics. They are as I said.

You should stop before you say anything that makes you look any more foolish.

Awwwww, you're looking out for me? Thanks man. Brings a tear to my eye.

*LAUGH*

If everyone knows it, then it should be easy to find some statical data or some links that back up your claims. Right?

Come on Logos. Really now. I've given you actual data you can look up. The Armed Citizen. In fact, I have the most recent issue of American Rifleman right in front of me. The February 2009 issue, page 8, has six articles. There were two shotgun incidents, a .40 cal incident, a 9mm incident, and two unknown pistols.

How about the December 2008 issue, page 8: six articles: two shotguns, one .454 Casull, one .45, and two unknown pistols.

Now, out of those 12 instances, 5 times the BGs were stopped because they had a gun trained on them. They didn't run, but were held at gunpoint until the police arrived. Now, statistically out of 12 instances where a gun was needed, only 5 times did just showing the gun stop the bad guy. The other 7 times actually shooting the bad guy was called for. And if I have to use my firearm 7 times out of 12, I want something that has the best chance of stopping the bad guy.
You'll notice that none of the firearms listed were 22lr.

So, prove your "statistics" Logos. I certainly can't see them from what I've been reading. What have you been reading? Or are these "statistics" of yours that

Statistically, most successful home defense starts and ends with the showing of a gun.....doesn't matter what kind.

Gun is shown, intruder runs

just in your head?

 

[Boba Fett]

I'd also like to add that encouraging people to just use any old gun because "just the sight of it will be all you're going to need most of the time" is recklessly irresponsible and you should be ashamed. There is so much more involved. People need to practice and have a firearm that they are comfortable using.

 

[shiftyer1]

Boba Fett

Imho if it's all you have it will probably work better than throwing a shoe. I have seen it bring down a deer. Would I choose a .22 as a primary defense weapon? HELL NO, but if it's all I got then yes I would.

I agree that the sight of a gun isn't what needs to be counted on. If seeing a gun sends b.g.'s running in fear then 50% of the time a finger in the pocket pointed like a gun should work to right?

 

[Boba Fett]

Imho if it's all you have it will probably work better than throwing a shoe. I have seen it bring down a deer. Would I choose a .22 as a primary defense weapon? HELL NO, but if it's all I got then yes I would.

Oh absolutely true. If all you have is a 22lr pistol, load it up and keep it your at bed side. AND save up for something more powerful.

But if you have a choice, it really isn't a wise decision to use a 22lr as your main choice for home defense most of them time.

By no means am I saying that you if all you have is a 22lr firearm that you shouldn't use to defend yourself. If that is what you have, and the BGs break in, send as many of the little stingers you can at them.

It wouldn't be my first choice either, but as I said in an earlier post, when Hurricane Ike hit, I had all my guns loaded including my Ruger MKII Target. I figured if something happened, I needed to be prepared. It wasn't the gun I carried around with me or had at arms reach, but it was always loaded and ready to go and everyone in the family knew where it was.

But I certainly wasn't going to just flash it or any gun at the BGs and hope they'd run away.


I like your "finger in the pocket" gun btw That's a good one.
Certainly by Logos' definition, the finger gun should be the cheapest home defense available. *Laugh*

 

[brisendines]

So, just a question- How many of the people sticking like glue to their opinions have been involved in a situation where you had to gently persuade someone to leave your house? Personally, I never have, so I want to be prepared as best as possible. I did hear though, a guy shot his wife in the chest with a shotgun, and she died 4 hours later at a hospital. I don't know the details, but I will never trust a single round from any gun.

 

[f4t9r]

The plus side of a 22 is the accuracy

I can shoot other guns (bigger caliber) just as well as my 22.
Some I can shoot better groups then my 22.
If a 22 is all you got thats fine but I would go with bigger is better.

 

[Logos]

Bob, you need to learn the difference between lurid magazine articles and statistics. It's not really your fault. Your paucity of references is the cause of your problem. Quoting a source like The Armed Citizen is just anecdotal--a few stories.

Stories that are chosen....how? By how exciting they are. Obviously, this would be skewed toward incidents that featured actual shooting. The media all compete for our attention.....this inevitably leads to a large distortion of reality.

Statistics are something else entirely. Numbers.....not drama.

I'll try to help you out, since you seem unable to Google.

Here's a quote from the American Enterprise Institute:

People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes. A question I hear repeatedly is: "If defensive gun use occurs so often, why haven't I ever heard of even one story?"

Anecdotal stories published in newspapers obviously can't prove how numerous these events are, but they can at least answer the question of whether these events even occur. Here are a few examples of the 20 cases that I found reported in newspapers as occurring during the first two weeks of May 2004: Lawrenceville, Georgia - At 3:00 a.m., an estranged former boyfriend kicked in a woman's front door. She had received a protective order against the ex-boyfriend because of "a history of drug addiction, violent behavior and threats." He was shot four times as he entered the apartment. Police said that the attacker, if he survived his injuries, would likely face charges of burglary and aggravated stalking.

Albuquerque, New Mexico -- At just after 5:00 a.m., a homeowner called police saying that someone was trying to break into his home. Police reported that while waiting for help to arrive, the homeowner defended himself by shooting the intruder in the arm.

Louisville, Kentucky -- As a robber tried to hold up a Shelby Food Mart, he was shot by a store clerk. The judge who heard the case said that the clerk had acted responsibly and that he "was viciously attacked by this animal."

Raceland, Louisiana - A man and his girlfriend offered two men a ride. One of the hitchhikers drew a gun and told the girlfriend to stop the car. The man then drew his own gun, fatally shooting the hitchhiker who was threatening them.

Toledo, Ohio -- A store employee wounded one of two men who tried to rob a West Toledo carryout. The employee had received his concealed handgun permit just three days earlier. The employee's father said, "My son did what he had to do... Money can be replaced; lives can't."

These life and death stories represent only a tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. A survey of 1,015 people I conducted during November 2002 indicates that about 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred nationwide over the previous year. Larger surveys have found similar results. Guns do make it easier to commit bad deeds, but they also make it easier for people to defend themselves where few alternatives are available. That is why it is so important that people receive an accurate, balanced accounting of how guns are used. Unfortunately, the media are doing a very poor job of that today.

Though my survey indicates that simply brandishing a gun stops crimes 95 percent of the time, it is very rare to see a story of such an event reported in the media. A dead gunshot victim on the ground is highly newsworthy, while a criminal fleeing after a woman points a gun is often not considered news at all. That's not impossible to understand; after all, no shots were fired, no crime was committed, and no one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not been drawn.

Even though fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker, the newsman's penchant for drama means that the bloodier cases are usually covered. Even in the rare cases in which guns are used to shoot someone, injuries are about six times more frequent than deaths. You wouldn't know this from the stories the media choose to report.

I hope this helps.

Again.....it is highly unlikely that any of us will ever have to raise a gun in our defense.

In the unlikely prospect that we do, the mere presence of the gun will solve the problem WELL over nine times out of ten.

Now, since the original question was whether the .22 can be/is used for home defense, the pragmatic answer is clearly.....yes.

Is it the best? No. But that wasn't the question.

Truth is, a .22 is what a lot of people have.....and it works.....more than nine times out of ten even before a shot is fired.

Since merely firing a shot will take us way beyond the nine times out of ten.....that leaves the .22 in a DAMNED good position and there is simply NO justification to disrespect it based on your slanted and unrealistic media information.

Yes, we recommend a shotgun loaded with #4 birdshot for home defense.

Yes, in a handgun we recommend a medium to large caliber in a load that will minimize endangering family members or neighbors due to excessive penetration.

But no, we don't disrespect the lowly .22 Long Rifle. It actually has some practical advantages over bigger guns (increased practice, for one) and is statistically sufficient for home defense well OVER nine times out of ten.

Source: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/gunlie.html

 

[Boba Fett]

John R. Lott JR. claims are highly dubious. Primarily because the number of respondents for his "number of defensive gun uses" is only 7 people.

So out of the 1,015 people in the survey, he only found 7 respondents who had use their firearms. Of those 7 people, 6 said that they only had to brandish to stop the crime.


http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/69/2/246
This site chronicles the problems with Lott's survey and surveys done by others. From the oxford Journal:

In view of the substantial amount of criticism of Lott’s work available in referenced sources, the review also generally confines itself to a reportorial role.

Here are the actual survey results.

The low end of the surveys presented in the Oxford Journals' Public Opinion Quarterly indicated brandishing was effective in only 52%. The two surveys that show some consistency indicate a 72-83% brandishing effectiveness.

However, as the article points out, all these surveys have their issues.

The surveys also measure a significantly small portion of citizens. On the low end of the surveys, Lott's survey includes only 7 people who used their guns in defense. Oh the high end of surveys, there were only 284 people.



Now, how about finding some real data/statistics that has been collected from officially documented incidents? Something like police reports or Centers for Disease Control statistics? Or ATF collected data?

Statistics are something else entirely. Numbers.....not drama.

Yes, and surveys are something else again. Mr. Lott's information is from a survey of 7 people, not documented data of actual events.
The Oxford Journal does a good job of breaking down the problems with all of the surveys. Read Glenn Beck's book An Inconvenient Book and you will have a better understanding of why surveys or polls are often accidentally skewed or intentionally misleading and self-serving.

Now, I did not present my information as statistical. I simply said that The Armed Citizen doesn't seem to support your claim. Yes, I am aware that stories with flare will likely be more abundant. That said, The Armed Citizen does seem to do the right thing and includes 5 incidents out of 12 where brandishing was enough. To me, this appears to be more honest than most media outlets and is probably the exception to Mr. Lott's article.

You say that the small number of references I give is the cause of my problems. Then hold yourself to the same standard and post more than just Mr. Lott's seriously flawed survey claims. In fact, find some real statistics not poll or survey results.


Now,I will admit, that from the surveys, it does seem like brandishing stops crimes about 75% of the time. But again, this is a survey, not real world data from real world reports of real world incidents from credible documentation (again, I direct you to the police, CDC or ATF for real data).

Find me real world data that proves your claim, and I will happily admit to being wrong about brandishing.

But no, we don't disrespect the lowly .22 Long Rifle. It actually has some practical advantages over bigger guns (increased practice, for one) and is statistically sufficient for home defense well OVER nine times out of ten.

Um....you are using one of those crazy statistics that don't seem to have any backing again. I don't recall reading that a 22lr is statistically sufficient for home defense 9 times out of 10. What I recall reading from the Mr. Lott's article is just a gun, not a particular caliber. In fact, it doesn't say if it was a shotgun or a pistol or a rifle or a BB gun. No firearm types or calibers are listed in his information you posted.

So claiming that the 22lr will work 9 times out of 10 is a erroneous conclusion based on nothing you've presented.

I will agree with you on one thing: The media bias. I agree with Mr. Lott that the bias of the media is terribly skewed to the dramatic and sensational, not the real world. But Mr. Lott's survey is equally skewed.


So, try again Logos.

 

[Logos]

If showing a gun ends the problem more than 9 out of ten times, as Lott's statistics show, then showing a .22 ends the problem more than 9 out of ten times.

Lott has done two studies, both showed almost identical results, both were attacked by liberals.

Lott's work is excellent, unless you're a liberal who hates to admit that guns are effective in stopping crime.....and almost ALWAYS without shooting.

From your own hostile liberal source, Oxford Journal:

Firearm defenses usually do not require more than brandishing, even by the least favorable account. While 98 percent, 95 percent, or even 90 percent brandishing might be a stretch, all the major surveys agree that defenders only rarely fire their guns.

As to Lott's reputation:

"If you want the truth the anti-gunners don't want you to know... you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns." --Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"As a gun-toting rock 'n' roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero." --Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock 'n' Roll

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

I appreciate what you're attempting to do here (have people prepared for the rare actual gun battle) but the numbers do not lie....the .22 (or any authentic looking gun) will cause an attacker to flee in WELL over nine out of ten confrontations.

You have an unrealistic outlook simply from reading too many sensational media stories.

 

[Boba Fett]

Surveys and Polls do not reflect reality.

Try again Logos.

His "studies" are just survey data. Not factual data collected from documented instances. I direct you to look to official sources such as the ATF or CDC or Police reports.

You know what the difference in surveys and actual data is? Reality.
A perfect example is elections.

How many times have surveys or polls said that person X was assured to win, but instead person Y actually won. Polls and surveys do not definitively represent reality and are often skewed (accidentally or intentionally). Only actual data from things like police reports reflects what actually happened.

As to Lott's reputation:

I'm not attacking Mr. Lott's reputation, simply his methods for determining one piece of data that will give people the wrong idea about firearms. I believe that it is reckless to make conclusions that take the pressure off of people to own the right firearms and to practice enough to protect themselves. And using survey data as the definitive to home defense stastics is preposterous especially when his results are based on only SEVEN people.


Surveys and polls can have any number of qualifiers or limitations or bias injected into them, even accidentally. That is what the Oxford Journal does a good job of breaking down. As opposed to the documentation of what has really happened. Additionally, people could lie, make up stories, or be nudged to the correct answers. Police and ATF data tends to be based on events that have actually happened and been investigated. The numbers are representative of the population, because there are no limits on the data...it happened and was catalogued. Surveys usually have limited amounts of time to find their information and set numbers of people to be surveyed. There are no such constraints on the police or ATF or CDC.

If showing a gun ends the problem more than 9 out of ten times, as Lott's statistics show, then showing a .22 ends the problem more than 9 out of ten times.

...the numbers do not lie....the .22 (or any authentic looking gun) will cause an attacker to flee in WELL over nine out of ten confrontations.

You're making a leap based on no data. Maybe it was the sight of a shotgun pointed at them that caused them to stop. Maybe if you just had a 22lr they'd laugh and continue to attack you. The point is that we don't know because Mr. Lott hasn't given us any of that data about the firearms or rounds used and you are simply making a false assumption.

Even if we assume that the survey data is correct and 5% of the time people actually had to use their gun, then shouldn't people have a gun with a round that will give them the best chance to protect themselves and their family just in case they are part of the 5%? Certainly, the 22lr isn't that round. If it were, then why don't the police use it?

From your own hostile liberal source, Oxford Journal:

Firearm defenses usually do not require more than brandishing, even by the least favorable account. While 98 percent, 95 percent, or even 90 percent brandishing might be a stretch, all the major surveys agree that defenders only rarely fire their guns.

Again, surveys, not statics. Statics are what really happened; surveys are inherently laced with potential faults and ambiguityity.

So, please try again Logos, but this time, try to find some police, ATF, or CDC data to support your claims, stop trying to paint me as someone who only reads sensationalist articles, and if you can present me with actual factual recorded statics and not surveys to prove your claim, as I have said, I will happily say you are correct about brandishing.

 

[brisendines]

Both of you are missing the point by a WIDE margin. If you had to defend yourself, you would want the best tool for the job. No one is saying that a 22 is the best tool for the job. I wish we would try to help each other rather than put each other down.

 

[Boba Fett]

Both of you are missing the point by a WIDE margin. If you had to defend yourself, you would want the best tool for the job. No one is saying that a 22 is the best tool for the job. I wish we would try to help each other rather than put each other down.

I have consistently said in this thread that you should use something better than a 22lr, but if all you have is a 22lr then keep it loaded and use it. And save up for something better.

You are absolutely correct brisendines, if you have to defend yourself, the 22lr is not the first or best choice.

What Logos and I are debating is Logos' claim that:

Statistically, most successful home defense starts and ends with the showing of a gun.....doesn't matter what kind.

Gun is shown, intruder runs.

So a .22 will take care of most needs.

If your intruder is crazy enough to stay and shoot it out with you with police probably en route.....well, your day is probably ruined and you'll need a little luck to avoid catching a bullet anyway.

I find this to be a reckless claim and his evidence for the claim is based a survey that only has 7 total people who used a gun to defend themselves.

I maintain that a survey is inherently flawed and cannot be used for accurate information. Perfect example is elections. Polls and surveys show one thing, who actually gets elected is the real info. So to prove his point, I said he needed to find data from official sources like the CDC, ATF, or police reports.

That's all. Just a simple debate between two gun loving, second amendment loving, conservative freedom loving THR members who happen to disagree in this instance.

If anyone else has actual data (not surveys, but actual reports and analysis by ATF, police, CDC, etc.) to contribute, that would be great. Actual data that goes either way in the debate is all good data.

 

[Logos]

Bob, you took an untenable position based on a few anecdotal stories instead of science.

Lott did two scientific surveys, each with over a thousand people questioned.

If you want to stick with stories instead of science.....that's your choice, but I'm not going to debate when there's nothing to debate.

 

[Boba Fett]

Bob, you took an untenable position based on a few anecdotal stories instead of science.

Lott did two scientific surveys, each with over a thousand people questioned.

If you want to stick with stories instead of science.....that's your choice, but I'm not going to debate when there's nothing to debate.

I am sticking to the so called "science" that you presented from Mr. Lott.

The "science" of Mr. Lotts' survey is as follows: of the 1,015 people his survey called to complete the survey, only 7 people actually used a firearm for defense.

That is hardly a reasonable number to base the claim that 95% of the time brandishing a firearm is enough to deter the bad guys.

So Mr. Lott's "science" is bad science. He neglects to actually use the scientific method and do some digging. Instead he relies on a poorly conducted survey. If he really wanted to do an accurate study, he could have contacted the CDC, the ATF, or researched the records of several large cities and compile the data to reach a conclusion.

You're going to have to answer the facts involved Logos. I don't have any claims other than that yours and Mr. Lott's are flawed. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Now that you have supplied your evidence, the scrutiny of the evidence must follow. And your evidence from Mr. Lott is based on 7 people and a lack of real data from law enforcement or government entities that would have such information.



If you don't want to debate this, that's your choice, but it isn't a conclusion to it either. I'm fine with stopping if you are and I think we can shake hands, agree that we disagree, and part from the debate as firearm loving Americans.

 

[mrt949]

WOW you people are waring me out a 22 will work if thats all you have .:banghead:

 

[FoMoGo]

A 22 will work if thats all you have .

Yes... but if you are honestly concerned with your safety... that isnt all you should have


Jim