Another happy ending. Woman shoots intruder.

[wolf_fire]

Maybe her goal was simply to stop the threat, not be the cause of his death. I was always taught that stop the threat is both the legal and the ethical/moral rationale for opening fire on someone. I have tried to eliminate the thought of *wanting* someone to die for failing at an attempt to victimize me or mine. I've never been victimized physically, so it remains to be seen how well I have programmed myself. In fact, I hope it remains unseen until the day I die. But I know for sure that if I shoot and only wound someone, I will not consider myself a lesser marksman or that I didn't accomplish what I intended to accomplish by being armed in the first place. I sincerely hope that, even if I do have to shoot someone, they live to regret it and repent for their crimes.

Blues

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Our attempt should never be to kill. It should be to stop the threat. My point was, and I probably didn't make it well since there was question, was that the BG was able to run from her bedroom, through the house, out the back door and into the yard before he collapsed. If he had been carrying something more serious than a kitchen knife, the threat quite possibly would not have been stopped. She was fortunate in this particular situation. A BG with a firearm would have been able to continue shooting back at her with the 9 shots in him since he was able to do all this running after he was shot. This was my point as to why a larger caliber may be something to think about, if that is, she can handle a larger caliber.

 

[cluznar]

Had she have put two of those rounds in his head he would have dropped right then. The Mafia and serial killers have used .22LR pistols to kill with 1 round through the forehead. She would be wise to change to a .32 which is much better than the .22 and still has low recoil. 1 round in center mass placed well from a .32 or .380 have killed people. Either one gives you more punch.

:dirol:

 

[BluesStringer]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Our attempt should never be to kill. It should be to stop the threat. My point was, and I probably didn't make it well since there was question, was that the BG was able to run from her bedroom, through the house, out the back door and into the yard before he collapsed. If he had been carrying something more serious than a kitchen knife, the threat quite possibly would not have been stopped. She was fortunate in this particular situation. A BG with a firearm would have been able to continue shooting back at her with the 9 shots in him since he was able to do all this running after he was shot. This was my point as to why a larger caliber may be something to think about, if that is, she can handle a larger caliber.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for using a .22 as a defensive weapon. I only responded to a post where it seemed (at the time, but since clarified) like the lady's successful defense of herself was ignored in favor of slamming her for her choice of weapons. I personally carry a .45 whenever I can conceal it, and never less than a 9mm any other time, so obviously, this isn't a subject that I haven't thought long and hard about.

That said, as to your point that the BG could have returned fire if he had a gun since he still had enough energy to run away after 9 rounds finding their target in him, actually, he also could have charged her across the bedroom where she shot from and still severely injured her or killed her with the knife. And if he actually did have a gun, it would have been a completely different scenario from the beginning, and our discussion would be evaluating the victim's actions from a completely different perspective. Would she have felt safe retrieving and aiming her weapon while she was at gunpoint? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, but whether she would or wouldn't, the story would've been much different I would think.

My gut reaction to the way it went down was just good, I'm glad she was able to get to any weapon that was in her home, regardless of whether it was the caliber I would have chosen in preparation for a violent confrontation. That's all.

Blues

 

[Chief1297]

I hope she plans on buying a bigger weapon with more rounds but Thank God she had what she had and knew how to use it. She is lucky he decided not to press the issue before dying.

 

[The_Outlaw]

Another happy ending. Woman shoots knife-wielding intruder (with a .22, no less) 9 times. Bad guy dead. Woman is slightly injured, but will be fine.

Link Removed

Good for her.....the only good rapist is a dead rapist imo.

 

[Lowjiber]

"She's smart, she's witty and obviously well prepared"

Kudos to her. However, we need to contact her and give her some more .22 ammo. You can't buy any in the stores, and she'll need to reload. I'll gladly send her a "brick" of .22's.

 

[AndeyHall]

She hit her target 9 freakin' times. Seems to me she's more than proficient with the gun she has.

Proficient, yes. But not all altercations will allow the ability to get nine shots in. That suggests the need for a more powerful gun. She still did good though. I'm not faulting her in any way. Just sayin.....

I've seen videos in many of my criminology classes where police light someone up with 9mm's, .40's or .45's and the guy keeps coming. 9 shots, depending on placement, doesn't hold a candle to what a whole lot of adrenaline and/or drugs can stand up to. One specific example we saw...a 6'3" 285lb ex-pro boxer on PCP took 6 .40 rounds, all to the chest and was still coming like he had just been slapped in the face.

 

[jcreek]

She hit her target 9 freakin' times. Seems to me she's more than proficient with the gun she has.

Proficient, yes. But not all altercations will allow the ability to get nine shots in. That suggests the need for a more powerful gun. She still did good though. I'm not faulting her in any way. Just sayin.....

I've seen videos in many of my criminology classes where police light someone up with 9mm's, .40's or .45's and the guy keeps coming. 9 shots, depending on placement, doesn't hold a candle to what a whole lot of adrenaline and/or drugs can stand up to. One specific example we saw...a 6'3" 285lb ex-pro boxer on PCP took 6 .40 rounds, all to the chest and was still coming like he had just been slapped in the face.

If the subject is armed with a knife or other such close-range weapon, this is when pelvic shots come in handy. I don't care how big you are, or what drugs you are on, once I shatter your pelvis with a .45 you're not coming any closer. .22 won't quite cut it for that.

 

[logunowner]

I always enjoy reading posts that discuss the value or not of carry/using a 22 cal. weapon. My wife carries a Ruger SR22. She practices with it at least twice a month, is very comfortable using it and can put 10 rounds in your shirt pocket at 7 yards 9 out of ten times. The thing that sometimes is missed in a discussion like this one is, she carries it, feels good about her ability to use it and we believe she would not hesitate to use it. Of course that is a variable that can't be known until the time comes to use it.
I open carry a Ruger SR9 everywhere I go and she does not like the recoil or the "feel" of the gun.
I guess a discussion of what caliber gives us something to talk about, but as far as we are concerned, if you are comfortable with your weapon, feel good carrying it, can hit what you are shooing at, go with it and if the BG walks or runs out the house to die instead of dropping dead at your feet so be it.

 

[Rhino]

A 22 is far better than any gun you aren't going to carry because you aren't comfortable with it. ANY gun is far better than any gun you aren't going to carry because you aren't comfortable with it, so I'm not saying don't carry a 22. I'm just saying it's wise to go bigger if that option's available, and you have to be able to fire the gun comfortably and competently for it to be considered an available option. If someone can't be competent with anything bigger than a 22, then so be it. But experience has shown that it's more often the gun that makes that determination than the caliber. My wife originally had a 380 because we thought a 9mm was too much for her. Then she fired a Glock G26 one day and the whole world changed. It wasn't the caliber she had a problem with. It was the guns she had tried out in 9mm before that day. Now she's thinking of switching to my G27, which is just the same gun in 40 caliber. That doesn't mean there's a bigger caliber gun just waiting to be discovered for everyone out there, but that is the case for a lot of people. It seems to happen a lot more with women too. I think the tendency is for them, and maybe the men around them too, to just assume they can't handle larger calibers, and they just sort of psyche themselves out. That's what happened with us, both my wife and I. Once we disregarded 'opinions' and started looking at things with a clean slate, her gun selection started getting much easier. Training and practice did too (a nice side benefit).
.
And as a side note, the lady in this story wasn't using a carry gun. This was a house gun. Moving up to a higher caliber in a house gun is easier than with a carry gun because there are fewer requirements to consider.

 

[logunowner]

A 22 is far better than any gun you aren't going to carry because you aren't comfortable with it. ANY gun is far better than any gun you aren't going to carry because you aren't comfortable with it, so I'm not saying don't carry a 22. I'm just saying it's wise to go bigger if that option's available, and you have to be able to fire the gun comfortably and competently for it to be considered an available option. If someone can't be competent with anything bigger than a 22, then so be it. But experience has shown that it's more often the gun that makes that determination than the caliber. My wife originally had a 380 because we thought a 9mm was too much for her. Then she fired a Glock G26 one day and the whole world changed. It wasn't the caliber she had a problem with. It was the guns she had tried out in 9mm before that day. Now she's thinking of switching to my G27, which is just the same gun in 40 caliber. That doesn't mean there's a bigger caliber gun just waiting to be discovered for everyone out there, but that is the case for a lot of people. It seems to happen a lot more with women too. I think the tendency is for them, and maybe the men around them too, to just assume they can't handle larger calibers, and they just sort of psyche themselves out. That's what happened with us, both my wife and I. Once we disregarded 'opinions' and started looking at things with a clean slate, her gun selection started getting much easier. Training and practice did too (a nice side benefit).
.
And as a side note, the lady in this story wasn't using a carry gun. This was a house gun. Moving up to a higher caliber in a house gun is easier than with a carry gun because there are fewer requirements to consider.

I agree with most of this, as you and I have said you still have to be comfortable with using it. That includes all aspects of using a gun including clearing a jam, loading a new magazine with ease, pointing and shooting whether that be a night or day.
The question of what is the least size caliber will continue, I assume forever. But what is important to my wife and I is that we both can look each other in the eye and say that we are comfortable in what we do to protect ourselves and the ones we love.

 

[Cojo]

She needs a bigger gun.

I'd say it was perfectly adequate.

 

[tricolordad]

Proficient, yes. But not all altercations will allow the ability to get nine shots in. That suggests the need for a more powerful gun. She still did good though. I'm not faulting her in any way. Just sayin.....

Idk about that, I've timed a mag dump (10 rounds in each) with my .22 and favorite .40 and the .22 is at 3.6 seconds and the .40 takes 6.1 seconds. I think 10 rounds of .22 stinger would be a hell of a lot better than 5 rounds of .40 in a life or death situation which is why I feel comfortable carrying only my P22 on hot or lazy days. Or when I burn up all my .40 and 9mm like I did yesterday lol

 

[tricolordad]

I agree with most of this, as you and I have said you still have to be comfortable with using it. That includes all aspects of using a gun including clearing a jam, loading a new magazine with ease, pointing and shooting whether that be a night or day.
The question of what is the least size caliber will continue, I assume forever. But what is important to my wife and I is that we both can look each other in the eye and say that we are comfortable in what we do to protect ourselves and the ones we love.

A thing most people forget about a lot of .22 semi-autos is that a lighter weight can effect accuracy negatively for some. I have a .22 conversion kit for my STI and a P22 as well as SR22 (which I don't carry at all) and all are heavy enough that they offer up a higher level of comfort.

 

[Rhino]

Idk about that, I've timed a mag dump (10 rounds in each) with my .22 and favorite .40 and the .22 is at 3.6 seconds and the .40 takes 6.1 seconds. I think 10 rounds of .22 stinger would be a hell of a lot better than 5 rounds of .40 in a life or death situation which is why I feel comfortable carrying only my P22 on hot or lazy days. Or when I burn up all my .40 and 9mm like I did yesterday lol

Five rounds? You need a bigger gun. Remember we aren't talking about a carry gun here. This is a gun she had in her house. The G27 my wife wants to carry holds eight rounds, and it's a Baby Glock designed for carry. A house gun would hold more than that, and would generally be easier to control due to size and weight. I'd take 10 rounds of 40 over 10 rounds of 22 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. But as logunowner and I have both pointed out, it's more than just caliber and gun. The person holding it has to be comfortable and proficient with it. Sometimes that will mean a smaller gun will have to do. I've just seen many instances where people have been 'talked' out of a better, higher caliber gun by the opinions of others convincing them they can't handle it, only to discover later that they can handle it quite easily, if they get the right gun. Unfortunately a lot of people never discover this because they never come across that right gun. It's actually kind of fun to watch when they do though. You can almost see the light bulb come on over their heads. Some of you may have seen this in fact, but not really realized what you were seeing. It often gets mistaken for the enthusiasm of a person shooting for the first time and discovering they really like it. Two people at the range where my wife discovered the G26 thought she was a first time shooter because she was so excited about finding a gun that truly met her needs and was comfortable to shoot.
.
Maybe a 22 is the right gun for the lady in this story because maybe she can't handle anything bigger. We'll never know. Cojo pointed out that it was perfectly adequate for her this time, but that was only because her attacker stopped when she started shooting. Obviously he was still capable of attacking her and we all know that many assailants still do when being shot. Had he done so, it's entirely possible she may never have gotten the chance to get off those ten shots. Had he continued the attack, she may have only been able to manage to get off two or three. If there had only been a couple of shots possible, the caliber becomes even more important. It worked out for her, and that's great. More power to her. And more power to anyone else who ever defends themselves with a 22, a 25 or any other small caliber handgun. My hat is off to them. But when you are basically betting on your life, you try to play the strongest hand you can. You owe it to yourself to make absolutely certain you're using the best possible tool available to you. Cutting corners or playing 'good enough' aren't smart when your life is at stake.
.
And larger calibers aren't synonymous with less comfort or less ease of handling. My 45s are more comfortable and easier for me to handle than my 40s are. I bought the G27 and a Sig P226 because I thought it would be nice to have more capacity, but they are much worse for me to shoot than my 45s, or at least than my Glock 45s anyway. I plan to sell the Sig and was going to sell the G27 until my wife expressed an interest in it. And my 45s don't all shoot the same either. My Smith 45 shoots and handles much different than the Glocks do. Never, EVER judge a caliber by shooting one, or even only a few, guns in that caliber. They are most definitely not all the same. Neither are peoples' shooting hands either. What works well for one person will not necessarily work well for another.

 

[logunowner]

For me the bottom line is that those of us that have taken the time to educate ourselves about self defense and acted on it, are a lot better off than those that believe a sign placed at a building or a law making it illegal for someone to hurt them is just as good as having a gun. Thank goodness this women believed it was her responsibility to protect herself and not rely on others.

 

[JSDinTexas]

People who defend/approve the use of a .22 for defense usually have convinced themselves that it is enough gun because they carry one and try to justify doing it. It is the same mindset that just wants to "stop the threat" instead of burning the BG down.
As I have said elsewhere: carry and do what you want. The decision will go only three ways - you'll be dead and not have to worry about it, you'll be alive for a while to watch your household and family be ravaged and then probably killed, or you'll be alive standing over the trash saying thank goodness I had enough firepower.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Had she have put two of those rounds in his head he would have dropped right then. The Mafia and serial killers have used .22LR pistols to kill with 1 round through the forehead. She would be wise to change to a .32 which is much better than the .22 and still has low recoil. 1 round in center mass placed well from a .32 or .380 have killed people. Either one gives you more punch.

:dirol:

Shoulda, woudla, coulda

She stop the threat, she protected herself. DONE!

 

[BluesStringer]

People who defend/approve the use of a .22 for defense usually have convinced themselves that it is enough gun because they carry one and try to justify doing it. It is the same mindset that just wants to "stop the threat" instead of burning the BG down.

You better hope that you never have to fire your weapon in self defense from here on out, because if you do and you kill someone, the above statement will be the prosecutor's #1 umm.....smoking gun piece of evidence that you had death on your mind, and not self-defense. Intentionally killing someone is illegal. Defending yourself and stopping the threat with appropriate levels of force, even in the most anti-gun states in the Union, is not.

If you want to reconsider your lapse in judgment for posting such self-incriminating drivel on a public forum, and edit that out, I would be happy to edit (or delete) my post in reply to it.

Blues

 

[JCliff]

You better hope that you never have to fire your weapon in self defense from here on out, because if you do and you kill someone, the above statement will be the prosecutor's #1 umm.....smoking gun piece of evidence that you had death on your mind, and not self-defense. Intentionally killing someone is illegal. Defending yourself and stopping the threat with appropriate levels of force, even in the most anti-gun states in the Union, is not.

If you want to reconsider your lapse in judgment for posting such self-incriminating drivel on a public forum, and edit that out, I would be happy to edit (or delete) my post in reply to it.

Blues

.
Blues is absolutely correct. Everything you put out on the internet is discoverable by an enterprising prosecutor if you are involved in a shooting. You have the authority to use force, including deadly force in some instances, to defend yourself or others by stopping the threat. There is a significant moral, intellectual, and legal difference between stopping the threat and killing. Everyone recognizes that when deadly force is used to stop a threat a killing can occur. The killing is incidental to stopping the threat, and not the purpose or goal of stopping the threat. That's a very important distinction.