Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Polonius wrote:

One of the joys of being an American is that you can decide if it's worth it to you, but the bleak reality is that a gun is far more likely to kill it's owner (or even a loved one) than it is to kill a "bad guy."

That is a TAD misleading. Deaths to owners of firearms aren't exactly spread evenly. They are clustered around those with mental illness, drug use, and those involved in criminal enterprise. Avoid those and the stats are about a wash. Besides, the goal of having a gun isn't to "kill a bad guy" it is to protect yourself. If an intruder sees a gun and flees, no shots fired, the gun did it's job.

Also, that added risk of death is less than the added risk of owning a swimming pool or trampoline, and by a long shot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

but the bleak reality is that a gun is far more likely to kill it's owner (or even a loved one) than it is to kill a "bad guy."

A misleading statement, since its implying that owning a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide. Owning a gun does not make you more likely to commit suicide in any way. We need to ditch language like that, its terrible for the perception of gun owners. The proper statement is "a suicidal person with access to a firearm is more likely to be successful". Which is not really relevant unless we are dealing with a specific scenario. It doesn't apply to the general population, so IMO isn't really any type of argument against gun ownership.

I think you can parse the statements any way you want. I don't think anybody is dumb enough to think being near a gun will make you more suicidal, but we know that suicidal thoughts tend to be acute, not chronic, and that even minimal barriers will reduce lethal attempts. Not having access to a gun won't reduce suicide rates to zero, but probably closer to zero than they are now. And a gun bought for self defense at 25 will still be lethal at 55.

Yes, it's a rhetorical device, but given that two thirds of gun deaths are by suicide, it's important to be aware of personal gun safety over a lifetime.

 Polonius wrote:
The only way that level of firearm defense makes any sense (and the studies I've seen have been self report, so keep in mind there might be some "motivated" reporting) is to think of virtually any conflict that ended positively while a firearm was involved. We don't have good data on firearm injuries vs. deaths, but I just don't see that ratio of injury to death to support that level of actual gunfire.

I suspect that in the vast majority of those incidents the firearm was never fired. Most of the time, the attack will be defeated simply by producing a firearm. Be it because they run away or surrender. The % of incidents where the firearm actually gets fired and it results in injury is probably a very tiny number of the overall number of incidents.

That would be my assumption as well. What's harder to untangle is how many of those situations could have been resolved without the gun?

(eh, why even)

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

One of the joys of being an American is that you can decide if it's worth it to you, but the bleak reality is that a gun is far more likely to kill it's owner (or even a loved one) than it is to kill a "bad guy."

That is a TAD misleading. Deaths to owners of firearms aren't exactly spread evenly. They are clustered around those with mental illness, drug use, and those involved in criminal enterprise. Avoid those and the stats are about a wash. Besides, the goal of having a gun isn't to "kill a bad guy" it is to protect yourself. If an intruder sees a gun and flees, no shots fired, the gun did it's job.

It's really easy to minimize gun suicides by othering them. It's easy to think that if you keep guns away from suicidal people, then nobody will use their gun for suicide. But that's not how it works. According to the CDC, over half of suicides had no known mental health disorder. And people with no known mental health disorder are more likely to use a firearm. www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/

I would bet that if you really dug into the data, men without mental health diagnoses and ready access to a firearm are a huge chunk of all suicides. Putting a gun in your house simply increases the risk that you, or somebody else, uses it to commit suicide. You really can't argue against that. There are ways to minimize and control for that, but you need to go in knowing that nobody can predict their stress or mental health in five years.

Also, that added risk of death is less than the added risk of owning a swimming pool or trampoline, and by a long shot.

I'd love a cite on that. I can see it if you don't include the suicides (which I wouldn't, but either way).

 Polonius wrote:
The only way that level of firearm defense makes any sense (and the studies I've seen have been self report, so keep in mind there might be some "motivated" reporting) is to think of virtually any conflict that ended positively while a firearm was involved. We don't have good data on firearm injuries vs. deaths, but I just don't see that ratio of injury to death to support that level of actual gunfire.

Your assumption is that all of them were against an armed assailant. I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of them were like mine, which involved an accidental encounter with an angry Mountain Lion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

I'd love a cite on that. I can see it if you don't include the suicides (which I wouldn't, but either way).

WHO determined that drowning accounts for 7% of all accidental deaths by injury. I dunno about trampolines, but falling causes 35% of all emergency room visits, and 14% of workplace fatalities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

I would bet that if you really dug into the data, men without mental health diagnoses and ready access to a firearm are a huge chunk of all suicides. Putting a gun in your house simply increases the risk that you, or somebody else, uses it to commit suicide. You really can't argue against that.

This is highly dependent on how far back you go in the records.

This is not the place for that type of discussion as it borders on politics. This is the thread about boom sticks.

If the topic desired is about self defense I would posit this forum:
https://pistol-forum.com

or others like it are more appropriate. PF has a plethora of current and ex LEOs on it, and other SMEs.

Now remember kids, shop smart, shop S Mart.

 Frazzled wrote:
This is not the place for that type of discussion as it borders on politics.

Or, you could just take it to Wasteland where all political discussion in this forum was supposed to go To, but no one seems to remember that, including some mods.

http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7483/control-becasue-gets-buried-politics

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is not the place for that type of discussion as it borders on politics.

Or, you could just take it to Wasteland where all political discussion in this forum was supposed to go To, but no one seems to remember that, including some mods.

http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7483/control-becasue-gets-buried-politics

I honestly think there needs to be a better place for political discussion than the Wasteland. I tried reading that forum and it was...…. hostile. It's why I didn't join up. If you aren't part of the echo chamber you are made to feel REALLY unwelcomed. Admittedly there is a fine line between over modding and total anarchy, but if that place was IRL it's be a dozen guy that acted like a cross between man-child Will Ferrell characters and snoody Monopoly Guys.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This is not the place for that type of discussion as it borders on politics.

Or, you could just take it to Wasteland where all political discussion in this forum was supposed to go To, but no one seems to remember that, including some mods.

http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7483/control-becasue-gets-buried-politics

Yes but thats full of nattering naybobs who don't know the difference between a Browning 1908 and a Browning 1909. Come on, if you can't get even the basics down...

Seriously, PF has an LEO input that gives a unique perspective for that type of issue.

Ayyyy I'm going shooting again this weekend. Long guns / outside private property. Last time I was there we had a blast messing around with refurbished and original WWII rifles.

m1 garand is a pleasure to use - compared to anything russian

 Stevefamine wrote:
Ayyyy I'm going shooting again this weekend. Long guns / outside private property. Last time I was there we had a blast messing around with refurbished and original WWII rifles.

m1 garand is a pleasure to use - compared to anything russian

The good old Mosin Nagant is pretty fun. Fun factor increases once you improve a few shortcomings, like putting a pad on the stock to keep that unergonomic metal plate from destroying your shoulder. Mine is modded to the point that the only original parts are the chamber and the barrel.

I've only shot one a couple of times, but the SKS can be a joy. I'm an avid AK guy, but that's a different era (sorta)

So, looks like Ruger now has a pistol chambered in 5.7mm. That's always been a round that has interested me, but a bit expensive to shoot.

It's a neat varmint gun, but that round was a gigantic flop with all of the police departments who adopted it in the US. There is a reason why most have ditched it. It's a high speed tiny bullet, and you get a lot of capacity. It didn't do very well in actually stopping bad people though.

I shot an FN 5.7 one time...a large and bulky gun. Weird recoil.

5.7 is an extremely niche round. It’s purpose built for one thing. Penetrating body armor. And unless your target is wearing some it’s worse than every other round at stopping the threat. And even when they are wearing it, there are plenty of pistol calibers that can do the job alright.

Remember that the round was designed for the P90. An SMG firing on full auto. A bunch of tiny bullets makes sense there. Not so much in a pistol.

Also, the 5.7 penetrating body armour is an overstated fact, based on a very select type of ammunition. Even in that instance it's not terribly good at it. As you said, in a 50-round magazine, it's entirely okay in a sub-machine gun....but it's just a round looking for a purpose in the civilian market.

It doesn't help that FN used to literally advertise it as "The Lady's Home Companion" or something hilarious.

Looks like 5.7 is making a comeback with all the new ammunition hitting the market. It would be very interesting if Ruger released the PCC in 5.7 too. In a longer barrel 5.7mm performs pretty well. Almost anyone can handle firearm like a PS90 and own 300 yards. Looking forward to checking one of the pistols out if I get the opportunity.

 Grey Templar wrote:
5.7 is an extremely niche round. It’s purpose built for one thing. Penetrating body armor. And unless your target is wearing some it’s worse than every other round at stopping the threat. And even when they are wearing it, there are plenty of pistol calibers that can do the job alright.

Remember that the round was designed for the P90. An SMG firing on full auto. A bunch of tiny bullets makes sense there. Not so much in a pistol.

Body armor has also moved on. Thats why I carry an assault wiener dog. He leaves landmines behind to stop people sneaking up on you, and his breath weapon has been rated at penetrating all known biohazard protective clothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Looks like 5.7 is making a comeback with all the new ammunition hitting the market. It would be very interesting if Ruger released the PCC in 5.7 too. In a longer barrel 5.7mm performs pretty well. Almost anyone can handle firearm like a PS90 and own 300 yards. Looking forward to checking one of the pistols out if I get the opportunity.

Its all DOA unless the ammo gets substantially cheaper. Its a round without a purpose.

Unfortunately, we have no weapons at home and will never be, but I'm shocked that you have an AR-10A2. You probably feel safe.

 jenniferbraud wrote:
Unfortunately, we have no weapons at home and will never be, but I'm shocked that you have an AR-10A2. You probably feel safe.

Most of the people in this thread own an armalite 15~ or some varition at minimum. Depending on the state the laws are much more intense for pistols over long guns. I'm pretty sure you can own a .22 anywhere at 18 or so.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
5.7 is an extremely niche round. It’s purpose built for one thing. Penetrating body armor. And unless your target is wearing some it’s worse than every other round at stopping the threat. And even when they are wearing it, there are plenty of pistol calibers that can do the job alright.

Remember that the round was designed for the P90. An SMG firing on full auto. A bunch of tiny bullets makes sense there. Not so much in a pistol.

Body armor has also moved on. Thats why I carry an assault wiener dog. He leaves landmines behind to stop people sneaking up on you, and his breath weapon has been rated at penetrating all known biohazard protective clothing.

That's why despite all that talk about the best guns for personal protection and home use, I was disappointed and disillusioned that nobody here even _mentioned_ the single end-all, be-all answer to the question.

Been lookin' to pick up one of those...

 jenniferbraud wrote:
Unfortunately, we have no weapons at home and will never be, but I'm shocked that you have an AR-10A2. You probably feel safe.

I have an AR-10 and I absolutely love it, but it's a little too big for home defense. Right now I am using a suppressed AR15 SBR with 300BLK for that. It's a nice platform I think.

Methinks tomorrow will be a range day for the PPS I've been carrying lately. Been trying to get more range time in with it. Pleasantly surprised with this gun so far. Hates steel cased ammo, but that's not a huge surprise.

 Stevefamine wrote:

Most of the people in this thread own an armalite 15~ or some varition at minimum.

I'm probably the only one that doesn't. Nor am really interested in one, to be honest. I have all the firepower I really need. Probably more.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

Most of the people in this thread own an armalite 15~ or some varition at minimum.

I'm probably the only one that doesn't. Nor am really interested in one, to be honest. I have all the firepower I really need. Probably more.

I've owned my share of AR rifles, but I sold my last one a while ago. Wouldn't hesitate to buy another one if I needed it for some reason. I'm an AK guy and prefer them.

I also own an AK - it was my first long gun, actually - but the iron sights are too problematic for me, and I haven't found an optic system I really liked (and I've tried a few). I also have short little T-rex arms, so getting a proper cheek weld is another challenge.

Great firearms but the ergonomics just don't work well for me.

 Ouze wrote:
I also own an AK - it was my first long gun, actually - but the iron sights are too problematic for me, and I haven't found an optic system I really liked (and I've tried a few). I also have short little T-rex arms, so getting a proper cheek weld is another challenge.

Great firearms but the ergonomics just don't work well for me.

AKV 9mm fits TRex arms I bet.

As side note, 5.7mm isn't a round without a purpose but the purpose is best expressed with the LEO ammo.

 Ouze wrote:
I also own an AK - it was my first long gun, actually - but the iron sights are too problematic for me, and I haven't found an optic system I really liked (and I've tried a few). I also have short little T-rex arms, so getting a proper cheek weld is another challenge.

Great firearms but the ergonomics just don't work well for me.

Sadly it takes work to make an AK function like a modern fighting gun. I used to run a blog called MFAK (Modern Fighting AK), etc. The US is also a terrible place for AKs right now. You get monkey-built parts kit guns, or overly expensive factory guns. The glory days are gone, sadly. Around 2010-2011 you could get a new Saiga AK around $500.

Too many people trying to make some poorly re-built WASRs into fighting guns, etc.

I currently have two Rifle Dynamics builds which are excellent fighting guns, in 5.45. However it's not something you can easily assemble yourself, nor cheaply nowdays.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I also own an AK - it was my first long gun, actually - but the iron sights are too problematic for me, and I haven't found an optic system I really liked (and I've tried a few). I also have short little T-rex arms, so getting a proper cheek weld is another challenge.

Great firearms but the ergonomics just don't work well for me.

AKV 9mm fits TRex arms I bet.

As side note, 5.7mm isn't a round without a purpose but the purpose is best expressed with the LEO ammo.

My brother let me shoot his FN 57 a couple years back. I did like that you have the ability to quickly crack off 2-3 rounds while keeping the gun on target. It's something that I'd never be able to do with a 9mm or .40.