Stupid Argument

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shotgun693

New member
Very often, when talking about self defense, some proponent of a little caliber will beat their chest and say, 'Well, then just let me shoot you with my .24 CAP, .31 S&W or other little round, and we'll see just how you take it!!!!!'
The actual truth is that I won't let you shoot me with your little round OR poke me with a sharp stick OR jab me with a spoon. That doesn't prove a thing. Except maybe that I 'm not stupid enough to let you cause me an injury, even a little bitty injury.
 
I think declining the offer to be shot is a good call.

Your position on the spoon seems a little whimpy but, it could be a big spoon. :confused: :D
 
Stupid Arguement
Click to expand...

When one considers the number of times that the mere presence of a firearm deescalates a potentially volatile situation... perhaps not so much. (Almost nobody, friend or foe, wants a hole poked/punched in them regardless of the size or source of the weapon.)

However, if one wants to increase in one's favor those very small odds, that a larger chambering may provide, one should feel free to arm oneself accordingly.
 
Just turn around and ask them if they had a choice of being shot with a .22 or a .454 Casull which one would they choose? And that is a stupid argument that I have heard for years.
 
Someone has a sig line that I will paraphrase (because I can't quote it directly).

I don't want to stand in front of any caliber. There are, however, a number that I will not stand behind, either.

That says it all for me.
 
If someone says "The 25 is useless as a defense round." Well, that is really a stupid thing to say. I'd take a 25 over a carrot or a handful of corn flakes any day of the week. Are there better choices, sure. But useless? No, it is far from useless.

Often the person saying "X is useless" is because he believes that "Y" is the best, only, true defense round. People get tired of being belittled by people they believe to be "obnoxious blowhards" or "know-it-alls". So what is the logical (if slightly absurd) rejoinder? "If X is so useless, why not shoot yourself in the rear with it to show just how useless it is."

If we can keep our opinions polite, we can avoid such things.

Personally, I don't want to get hit with the cornflakes, Those edges are really sharp.!:eek:

best wishes
 
Plenty of people have been killed with .22's, .32's, .380's and .45's. Plenty of people have also walked away from hits with all those same calibers. A larger caliber gives you better odds at stopping an attacker but only if you can shoot it- shot placement is king. This is a pointless discussion. No one wants to get shot and all calibers can kill. But given a choice, I'd rather have a 9 year old girl shoot at me with a .45 than a 21 year old Marine shoot at me with a .22. Get it?

The next time someone argues with you over a "wimpy caliber", do the smart thing and change the topic.
 
SwampYankee wrote, QUOTE " Plenty of people have been killed with .22's, .32's, .380's and .45's. Plenty of people have also walked away from hits with all those same calibers. A larger caliber gives you better odds at stopping an attacker but only if you can shoot it- shot placement is king. This is a pointless discussion. No one wants to get shot and all calibers can kill. But given a choice, I'd rather have a 9 year old girl shoot at me with a .45 than a 21 year old Marine shoot at me with a .22. Get it? END QUOTE "

The next time someone argues with you over a "wimpy caliber", do the smart thing and change the topic


I couldn't have said it any better than this!!
 
It is a perfectly sensible answer to the even more stupid "if you shoot me with that little gun and I find out..." or "those things wouldn't hurt anybody..."

Jim
 
At one time, there was still strong debate as to whether or not HIV was actually related to or the cause to AIDS. One researcher violently opposed the proposition that the virus caused AIDS. he was a really wierd individual who followed the school of though that it was all related to lifestyle.

He made the declaration many times that as soon as somebody actually isolated the virus itself, that he would allow that researcher to inject him with the pure virus to prove that it was harmless.

He was challenged, of course, if you're willing to take the virus, why not just share a little blood? He of course replied, no, I offered to be shot with a red ryder.

It's a lot easier to mouth off about things like this and pass the buck back to the other man as being a coward, if he is too big of a sissy to let someone shoot him in the back with a pocket pistol that he believes to be ineffective.


'Well, then just let me shoot you with my .24 CAP, .31 S&W or other little round, and we'll see just how you take it!!!!!'
Click to expand...

My usual response:

Sure. Seriously. once. Then it's MY turn.
Click to expand...

If it would eliminate just one idiot from the planet, I'd take a flesh wound from a .25 in exchange for a 3" magnum load of buckshot.
 
Monty Python fans of old will remember the risk associated of a man attacking you with a piece of fruit!
Click to expand...

There are other related lessons to be learned from Monty Python: Sometimes a sharp stick or spoon may be a very serious threat-remember the rabbit; and, a "flesh wound" may not be something to laugh about.:D Maybe the best Python advice for dealing with a dangerous threat, "RUN AWAY!"
 
The actual truth is that I won't let you shoot me with your little round OR poke me with a sharp stick OR jab me with a spoon. That doesn't prove a thing.
Click to expand...

The problem with THAT argument is that it fails to take into account that it's all relative in that it hangs on the notion that one's aversion to get getting shot, hit what any of the above all being equal.

For example, suppose someone offered you $2000 so that they could bop you in your beer belly with a spoon, or shoot you with a water gun. Ordinarily, you'd prefer not to have those things done to you, but you'd have to be pretty stupid decline an offer of $2000. In contrast, if someone offered you that same $2000 in exchange for you allowing them to shoot you with a .32acp pistol, you'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that offer.

When someone presents the argument "I don't see you volunteering to get shot with with .22/.25/.32/.380!" they're probably more trying to get you to think how averse you are to the notion, not just that you'd rather not get shot with it in the same sense as anything you'd rather not have done to you.

Someone once was trying to be melodramatically profound said something like, "If I'm in a gun fight, I hope my opponent has a .32 because I'll be shooting back with my .40" My thought is, if you're gonna be hoping, it's better to hope your oppenent is a worse shot than you, because if he is better then your .40 is no match against his .32.
 
A lot of people think that saying something - anything - that's true makes them "win the argument", regardless of how relevant what they are saying may be.
 
I carry "little calibers" quite frequently.

Personally, I've never seen much of a need to try to defend what I carry.

I know my capabilities with my firearms, and I'm betting my life on my skills and my reactions more so than who designed my chosen handgun/cartridge, how many Nazis/bank robbers/chicken thieves/aliens it's killed over the last 100 years, or how many quadrillion rounds the magazines hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top