TexasCHLforum.com

In Ocala, Florida, very early Friday morning, a 57-year-old man got into a dispute with his 50-year-old live-in "girlfriend." (Why do I suspect not for the first time?)

He dared her to shoot him. She did. In the face with an "antique" .38-caliber revolver.

She is in jail. He is in the morgue.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20110218/A ... ting-death" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do not dare anyone to shoot you. This is a real bad idea. The best you can do is not get shot right then and there.

- Jim

Sorta' on topic:

There are those who do not believe the .22 is an adequate self defense cartridge. I'm waiting to hear the condition of the person/s who asked to be shot with a .22 to prove this belief.

Oldgringo wrote:Sorta' on topic:

There are those who do not believe the .22 is an adequate self defense cartridge. I'm waiting to hear the condition of the person/s who asked to be shot with a .22 to prove this belief.

I think it's as much about reliability as bullet ballistics. After > 1500 rounds, I have yet to have a non-mag related failure in my 9mm, but my .22 has had two or three FTEs after only 100 rounds (it's still really fun to shoot though ).

I have a great deal of respect for the .22 LR.

If you have a place where you can do it, shoot an unopened can of soda with a .22. It explodes, sometimes three or four feet in the air, and the can is shredded.

You wouldn't want that kind of damage to your heart, brain, or intestines.

- Jim

Soda cans are in no way comparable to a human body.

karl wrote:Soda cans are in no way comparable to a human body.

They are to mine. Both the can and my body contain about the same amount of soda.

karl wrote:Soda cans are in no way comparable to a human body.

Each is an elastic container filled with incompressible fluid.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote:Sorta' on topic:

There are those who do not believe the .22 is an adequate self defense cartridge. I'm waiting to hear the condition of the person/s who asked to be shot with a .22 to prove this belief.

I wouldn't volunteer to be shot with a .177 caliber pellet pistol either, but that doesn't make it a suitable defense round.

Excaliber wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Sorta' on topic:

There are those who do not believe the .22 is an adequate self defense cartridge. I'm waiting to hear the condition of the person/s who asked to be shot with a .22 to prove this belief.

I wouldn't volunteer to be shot with a .177 caliber pellet pistol either, but that doesn't make it a suitable defense round.

Given my choice between a .22 and a rock or a sharp stick, I'll take my chances with the .22.

Oldgringo wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Sorta' on topic:

There are those who do not believe the .22 is an adequate self defense cartridge. I'm waiting to hear the condition of the person/s who asked to be shot with a .22 to prove this belief.

I wouldn't volunteer to be shot with a .177 caliber pellet pistol either, but that doesn't make it a suitable defense round.

Given my choice between a .22 and a rock or a sharp stick, I'll take my chances with the .22.

Man, I wouldn't. The velocity of a rock is way slower than the .22 and I can possibly dodge it, and unless hit in the head, the chances of it doing permanent damage are very low. A sharp stick might be able to stab me, but may not penetrate, or if it does, not very deep. The .22 probably WILL penetrate and go deeper than the stick and hit a vital organ. And, if shot in the head, it more than likely it will kill me. So, I would prefer those options in reverse order myself.

I think Oldgringo meant he would rather be on the "giving" end of distributing .22 bullets.

However, he certainly can correct me if I'm wrong.

Rocks and sharp sticks have also been very unpleasant since the days of David and Goliath. The Bible is replete with reference to spears and arrows. The ancient Greeks and Romans did quite a bit of damage without firearms.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I think Oldgringo meant he would rather be on the "giving" end of distributing .22 bullets.

However, he certainly can correct me if I'm wrong.

Rocks and sharp sticks have also been very unpleasant since the days of David and Goliath. The Bible is replete with reference to spears and arrows. The ancient Greeks and Romans did quite a bit of damage without firearms.

- Jim

Jim, as usual, is correct.

Well since the thread has drifted to .22s. The .22 long rifle is a very lethal round but it's "stopping power" is very low. Lots of people have been killed by a .22 but it has taken them considerable time to stop what they were doing.

Using a can of soda as a test medium doesn't prove anything except that a sealed pressurized container will burst when penetrated by an object. I have seen soda cans hit with .45 caliber bullets just squirt liquid and I've seen them burst like a grenade hit with a pellet rifle. Go figure.

Back on topic. Inviting someone to shoot you during an argument may well remove your genes from the shallow end of the gene pool.

MoJo wrote:The .22 long rifle is a very lethal round but it's "stopping power" is very low. Lots of people have been killed by a .22 but it has taken them considerable time to stop what they were doing.

This is true. A man shot a woman (his wife or girlfriend, I forget which) with a .22 literally around the corner from our house. She was hospitalized immediately and survived about three weeks. The charges were upgraded to murder, and maybe you can write to the man now in care of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

karl wrote:Soda cans are in no way comparable to a human body.

Each is an elastic container filled with incompressible fluid.

- Jim

The soda can is under pressure, the human body is not.

Either way, I don't care to be shot by anything.