Please Help - I can't seem to find a 22lr rimfire like this

[hqmhqm]

I just finished reading the book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda"http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200016669&sr=8-1

I am not at all a paranoid person, but reading that I had to wonder "if it could happen there, why not here?". In hindsight there were cultural, ethnic, and historical factors which led to the situation where mass murder was done mostly as mobs of neighbors attacking each other.

We like to think we're different here, but watching the LA riots has to make you think, could something like that happen there? I give kudos to the original poster for trying to think through such a scenario, and figure out an economical way to prepare. I would try to read up on any books that analyze mob violence situations, and what is known about the most effective defenses.

I sort of doubt the .22LR approach is the right avenue, but I would try to do some research first before making a decision.

 

[John C]

Glenn;

Your quote of the AG website supports exactly what I said. The individual in the mob which you shoot:

1) better be close enough to harm you. He has a crowbar? That is a short distance.

2) have made statements or otherwise indicated that he wants to kill or harm you. He's setting fire to your car in the driveway? No dice. The mob is tearing apart your garage and carting off everything in it? No dice. They're chanting "Kill the <insert expletives>" if the threat isn't specific, no dice.

No one here, that I know of, is arguing that lethal force isn't justified when someone is about to kill or seriously injure you. But "the most threatening person" in the mob may, or may not fit that bill. If all they're doing is swarming over and stripping your house of it's contents, lethal force isn't justified, ever, in California. They're setting fire to your house? That may, or may not be enough to justify deadly force.

-John

 

[TimboKhan]

I am not at all a paranoid person, but reading that I had to wonder "if it could happen there, why not here?". In hindsight there were cultural, ethnic, and historical factors which led to the situation where mass murder was done mostly as mobs of neighbors attacking each other.

We like to think we're different here, but watching the LA riots has to make you think, could something like that happen there? I give kudos to the original poster for trying to think through such a scenario, and figure out an economical way to prepare. I would try to read up on any books that analyze mob violence situations, and what is known about the most effective defenses.

Rwanda could literally not be further away from America in terms of political situations and reasons for violence. It's like comparing apples to spaceships.

Could, in theory, something like that happen in America? Sure. Something like that could happen anywhere, I guess. The likelihood of a Rwanda-like situation happening here is miniscule. I won't deny that riots can, have and will happen in particular cities here, but I very seriously doubt that someone living in Des Moines or Booneville, Arkansas needs to worry about it. Speaking for myself, I think about mobs about as much as I think about vacationing on the Dalmation Coast, which is to say rarely. I do think about Zombie mobs a lot, but that doesn't count.

 

[GRB]

John C,

Obviously you chose to pay attention only to part of my original post in this thread, since you somehow seem to have construed that the mob of which I sopke was not plainly a threat to life or limb. Yes if a mob is about to kill you, then the whole mob is a threat. The person closest to you - if the mob is unarmed other than for that which nature gave them - is the most threatening - or don't you comprehend how that is the logical choice of who is most threatening in such a scenaio. I guaranteee, if this scenario was one in which I was about to become a vixctim, I would choose rather to be thge survivor, and I would choose to use whatever weapon was at hand, including a loaded gun, to defend myself, and to stop the threat. I also guarantee it would be legal for me to do so under the totality of the circumstances.

All the best,
GB.

 

[CZguy]

I also guarantee it would be legal for me to do so under the totality of the circumstances.

Could you expand on that.

 

[Barbara]

I just finished reading the book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda

That book is one of the reasons I'm adamant about owning guns.

 

[John C]

Glenn;

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. In your last post you are clearly substituting the GENERAL threat of the mob for the SPECIFIC threat of an individual in the mob. US law does not allow transference of one for the other. A person is either a direct threat to you or not. If they are, then do what you need to do. If they're not, killing them is murder. Therefore, if the mob is a threat, but an individual in it is not, then you can't use deadly force.

Some states, like Texas, allow a person to use deadly force to protect their houses, but California, and I would bet NY, do not.

I find your argument interesting, since you're basically saying that Mother Teresa, clearly visible in her habit, who is at the front of the mob, pleading for them to stop their murderous rampage, is a part of the dangerous mob that is killing those in their path. Therefore, to defend your life, you are justified in killing her, as part of the mob. I don't think that's going to fly in most juridictions.

I would argue that the proper course of action in that circumstance is to start capping those that are actually a direct threat to you, like those with weapons, etc. Skedaddling might be the smartest tactic for survival, rather than shooting it out with an armed mob. To each there own, I'm not too worried about mobs in my neck of the woods. It's an interesting topic, to say the least.

-John

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

A 22 long (Rifle), yes I said rifle. It is a rifle. There is not a man on God's green earth who could not convince me otherwise. If you can get your hands on some of those high capacity magazines for the 10-22 you can fend one heck of a lot more then you could with a pistol.

#1 As a general rule the pistol keeps the bad guy off of your immediate person.
#2 A shotgun defends you from the bad guy in your house.
#3 A rifle keeps them off your property.

A 22lr can do it pretty dammmmm good. Great for those who don't have the experience in the shooting arts.
If you can't afford the better calibers then reach for a dependable 22lr and a lot of magazines.

22 cartridges drive nails into concrete all of the time.
The 22 caliber is extremely underrated.
The pistol is extremely overrated. The pistol, I don't care the caliber provides too much false confidence. I would certainly hate to go against anyone who knows how to shoot a 22lr rifle if I had only a pistol. If that mob has a 22lr and I have only a pistol I am in trouble. Think about that..

 

[sammoh]

Who said anything about a pistol? I think the consensus here was to forget the 22lr and get an SKS. Unless I've been mistaken about the SKS, I thought that was a rifle. Personally, I'd rather have an M14 or something of that nature shooting 7.62NATO. Maybe get a through&through and hit more than one mobbing person with one shot. More efficient use of ammo that way but then I don't ever intend on being in that situation anyway.

Sam

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Post #31

Trying to fend off a mob with .22s while having .38 and 9mm bullets raining down on your position is madness.

Not trying to take anything out of text but a rifle is still a rifle and a pistol is still a pistol.

 

[w_houle]

This thread isn't quite complete... instead of a .22lr have you considered the 40mm Bofors

 

[squirrel sniper]

theres three problems with your idea. One, if you are looking at a semi auto, then you could only shoot as fast as you could put a round in the tube, since the action cycling would prevent you from putting a round in the tube. Two, the .22 is a rimfire. Imagine loading a .22 into a marlin 336. The gate would put pressure against the round, mostlikely denting the round, causing a jam. Three, When the round goes into the tube, it has to rub against the edge of the hole in the reciever, while this doesnt do anything to a .30-30 or a .357, it would most likely set off the rimfire .22, most likely setting off all the other rounds in the tube. If you dont want to reload mags check this out
(http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/GNS120-44767-1172.html)

 

[Spee-D-Loader]

Reloading .22 rimfires quickly

I am a little late for this thread, however, I wanted to point out that the Spee-D-Loader holds 120 rounds of ammo. This ammo can be .22lr, .22m, .22sh, or even the .17hmr. If you carry a couple of fully-loaded Spee-D-Loaders with you (or more), that could take care of your reloading problems. If you want to check out the instructions, go to www.spee-d-loader.net. There is an instruction page.

 

[Bendutro]

Enjoy your tubular mag, I'll be belt-fed.

 

[Spee-D-Loader]

Belt-fed...

...nothing like belt-fed! Could take out quite a few varmints (4-legged OR 2-legged) with them. However, as an alternative the spee-d-loader is a great tool too.

 

[TeeDub]

What about an old Mossberg 151m or the like?

I don't know for sure, but they have a tubular mag that you load thru the stock like a lever action.

Wish I knew more, and something tells me these would be a bugger to get.

 

[Spee-D-Loader]

Mossberg

Are you asking if the Spee-D-Loader will work with the Mossberg 151M?? It should work - there are instructions for buttstock loading on the spee-d-loader website (www.spee-d-loader.net) if that helps. You just need to load the round rim first into the Spee-D-Loader. It'll hold any .22 - lr, long, short, mag and load any tubular fed .22 rifle.

 

[kcmarine]

* Cracks open Dr. Pepper and watches thread degenerate. *