Nope not lazy. The .40 and .45 both are capable of deep penetration and bone smashing....which is one of my criteria for a primary carry gun.
So let's see...you are not lazy by compromising on the criteria that you think are important, but others are lazy because you don't agree with their criteria and compromise. Seems a litle odd.
BTW David I own a couple of 21's and have easily concealed them in the past.
OK. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though. I own a couple of 1911s and have easily concealed them in the past. I've owned a S&W N-frame and easily concealed it in the past.
How many civilian gun incidents have you reviewed?
Off the top of my head I'd say between 1500 and 2000. I'd try to be more precise but most of my office is still in storage while repairs from Hurricane Rita continue.
Where can this information be found?
Some of it is academic in nature, but most of it can be found with just a little searching, depending on the data you are wanting to find. Lot's of it ends up in newpapers, "it happened to me" sections of magazines such as the NRA Armed Citizen column, various biographies, and so on.
I said " History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. ".
And I said that is pretty vague. "Likely never" might mean one thing to one person, something else to another.
Breaking down the odds based on personal lifestyle doesn't change my statements truth.
Well yes, actually it does. See the above note.
I would just love to see the stats that indicate that folks living a more risqué lifestyle are likely to need a gun in their lifetime.
Lifestyle is one of the prime indicators of likelihood of victimization. The fact that you don't know that info or don't understand how it applies is rather telling.
I don't argue about your stats rather your willingness to potentially place life and limb on those stats.
Got some bad news for you. Everybody does that, in multiple ways. The problem with many is that they have no idea of what the actual stats are so they cannot make an informed decision.
You do so with a bias toward puny and against those of us who recommend heavier calibers.
Nonsense. I have no bias toward small guns or large. If you want to carry a big gun, by all means do so. If you want to carry a small gun, by all means do so. Just realize that it really doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things.
BTW what are my "falsehoods" or "bad information"?
I think we just pointed out a couple of them right there. We can throw in your constant denial of the effectiveness of small calibers, your insistence that certain factors are important in DGU incidents that aren't and so on.
Factually incorrect???????
Yes.
You recommend and advocate puny based on stats.
Nope. Incorrect again. Pointing out that something is adequate for the job at hand is neither a recommendation nor an advocacy.
You even said your personal odds of needing a gun in your lifetime are higher because of your lifestyle compared to other civilians life style.
Nope. Incorrect again. Starting to see the pattern?? I never said any such thing.
You are the king of statistics and they do seem to govern your every move.
Nope. Incorrect again. Stats certainly come into play in deciding what to do (as is true of everybody) but they do not govern my every move. If so I wouldn't do all those things that are contra-indicated by the stats.
And part of the contradiction you seem incapable of understanding.
Huh??? Gonna have to be a bit mosre specific there, as there is no contradiction indicated in the statement you have quoted.
What I can do is fight with a handgun, rifle, and shotgun better than most.
And you know this how---given that you have never been in a gunfight or attended any training??
My competitive experience is close to 2 decades worth.
Should I ever need information on how to play the shooting games, I will keep you in mind.
I agree, so what? But you are the one who posted it, not me. I fail to see anything of any relevance in it, but again, I didn't post it.
Does your experience make your words more true?
When you have someone who has been in the field and is discussing what has actually occurred in actual incidents, yes, I would consider that information to be more accurate than someone whose experience has been playing games. By your own statement, you can find nothing wrong with my facts. I would consider somebody like Clint Smith, or John Farnam, or others of their ilk, to be better at describing and discussing what actually occurs during training and gunfights than somebody who has not trained and interacted with with many fighters.
You made the statement to lower my credibility and strengthen your own.
No. I feel no need to sstrengthen my credibility. I'm pretty much an open book and have been doing this stuff a long time. But whenever someobody is going to talk about how important something is for a DGU, and how to survive shootouts, and other stuff like that I think it important to find out just where their ideas come from.