|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: For self-defense, select a nine-shot, .22-caliber revolver
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Every time President Obama talks about taking away our guns, people rush out to buy one while they can, but what type of gun is best?
First, I do not recommend any semi-automatic pistol for self-defense, because if you get a misfire, it takes two strong hands to jerk the slide back to eject the bad bullet and let a new one in.
Second, if you don't hold the gun tight, the mechanism won't work and your gun could jam. In either case, you could get killed.
My choice for a gun for self-defense is a nine-shot .22-caliber revolver. If you get a misfire in a revolver, just pull the trigger again to bring a good bullet under the firing pin. |
| Comment by:
jac
(10/30/2015)
|
It's better then nothing, but not a good self defense gun. Shooting someone with a .22 LR revolver is more likely to annoy them than to incapacitate them. You will need a head shot or a heart shot to stop someone with a .22 LR.
Even with a heart shot, it might take someone a half a minute before he realizes he is dead. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
