re: .22 magnum for concealment?

quote:

---

Nothing personal, but you really seem to be big on "book learning."

---

I'm big on learning period. Which means I research a topic and weigh it against personal experience.

quote:

---

But with all that said, you're simply off-base to claim: "A threat doesn't care what you are shooting at them, they only care that they are being shot at. In that regard, .22 Mag is equal to any other firearm."

---

It's actually based on real world studies on the topic, so no I'm not off base on anything I have stated here.

quote:

---

There's a reason why you can't cite a single LE agency, or a single military unit, that routinely arms its troops with .22's.

---

Did I imply there was? I'm not attempting to do such a thing so it is beyond me as to why you think I was trying in the first place. Make an honest argument or don't make one at all. I've stated already that there is a huge difference between the military/govt agencies and civilians in the application of armed force. Why don't you try making an argument that doesn't put words in my mouth or attributes non-existent conclusions nobody else is making here?

quote:

---

that some of your "academic" arguments are being put forth to encourage people to reexamine their opinions.

---

I do that a lot. I challenge those that are hide-bound because that's the only way bad information is stopped from being propagated. I do that on a wide range of topics because the vast majority of people simply don't do their own homework, they just take what they are given at face value. You should try it sometime.

quote:

---

I'm going with "conventional wisdom" that's based on a 150 years of men stopping men with firearms.

---

Convention changes, or should if people would try to be more objective. It's changed with every major war in the last 200 years. Too many people wrap themselves in conventional because it's too difficult to accept new ideas or maybe accept the fact that the advice they grew up with isn't the best.