Ask them if they think all handguns suck for self-defense. Tell them you have it from a great expert that they do. See what they say.
Actually, most defense experts that I have ever read pretty clearly state that the rifle is the superior defensive tool, all things being equal. I am not an expert, but I am just reporting what I have read. As a matter of fact, isn't it Clint Smith that said that pistols are best used to fight your way to the rifle (or something close to that?)?
Because some handguns are better than some rifles - if only because of rapidity of follow-up shots. Sounds to me like he is saying, "depends." Assuming he isn't talking about the diapers, "depends" is probably closer to the truth than any other position on this or amny other subjects.
I agree with this statement, more or less. Follow up shots are surely more rapid from a 1911 than they are from a model 700. By the same token, the follow up shots are equally as rapid, from an AK or an AR as they are from that same 1911. The advantage, of course, is capacity. I also happen to think that I would rather have 7 rounds of .45 than 14 rounds of .22. In that case, "depends" is an accurate statement.
With that being said, I pretty firmly believe that the rifle is the superior tool, an opinion that I did not always have, but have come to believe after listening to experts and knowledgeable people in general, both here on THR and in real life. Given the choice, I would much rather defend home and hearth with my AR (or SKS, or Saiga) than I would with any of my handguns. The reason, for me, is pretty simple. I shoot them better under duress (something I know from personal experience), I value the advantage of capacity (even though it's theoretically unnecessary since I shoot them better), and because I have a wider and much more practical range of caliber options.
Again, I am no expert, but I would guess that any caliber that represents a signifigant gain in power over the typical defensive cartridges (.45/.357/9mm, etc.) is probably less effective in a defensive situation due to control issues. If you can shoot a .44 mag (or bigger) as quickly, accurately and well as you can shoot a 9mm, god bless. My guess is that for the bulk of the population, that simply isn't the case. I, on the other hand, can shoot my AR or my SKS quickly and accurately with better terminal performance. I know a .223 isn't as "big" as a .45 or a .357, but in terms of damage to tissue and potential for blood loss it is superior, particularly if your loaded with something like the TAP. The same can be said of the 7.62x39. It is also worth mentioning that I actually have been shot with a defensive handgun caliber, specifically the 9mm, and at very close range even. It hurt, and I lost a good deal of blood over the course of several hours, in addition to a kidney and some assorted guts, but the fact is that I would have been able to fire back for a good hour before I would have been "stopped". Looking at various ballistics tests relative to my case, the .223 likely would have caused more damage thanks to fragmentation. Although I have started shooting 9mm again as I find it enjoyable and cheap(er), I really have serious doubt as to it's combat effectiveness solely because of what happened to me. Personal experience always speaks louder than the written word, and I
know I would have been able to fight back for a pretty fair amount of time, which is something I don't want any intruder I happen to shoot to do.
Of course, I am also not poo-ing on handguns. I sleep with a .357 right next to my bed (and a loaded AR right next to that!). I also keep a .45 handy at all times, and of course I actually carry a handgun for defense (in .357, if anyone cares). It's not like I think handguns are without defensive value, and I don't think Correia was saying that, although apparently thats how y'all took it. Simply put, I think what he was saying is that in comparison, the handgun is simply not as good a tool as the rifle, assuming reasonable caliber choice with both. Doesn't mean that it is useless, doesn't mean it won't get the job done. Just means that it isn't the best tool, just like a crescent wrench isn't the best tool when compared to a properly fitting socket wrench.
The human body is very fragile.
I guess I would argue the point to the extent that while tissue is easily pierced and bones are relatively easily broken, human beings have proven to be quite resilient under a wide variety of conditions, with a wider variety of injury. I get what your saying to a point, but there have been any number of cases of people that have soaked up lead left and right, and still were able to stand and deliver. Want a great example? Read some of the Medal of Honor citations given to guys that lived to get the medal handed to them. Mindset, luck, and circumstance can all overcome, at least temporarily, our inherent fragility.