Posted on 05/21/2010 3:39:37 PM PDT by bjorn14
I was having breakfast on the terrace with my wife the other day and out of the blue she says to me "I think I want a handgun but I don't want it to be able to kill someone"
My first thought was "What's the point?"
Well alot of back and forth discussion, so any suggestions/comments/advice?
Most hit men and assassins use a .22 pistol.
/johnny
Starter pistol.
If you have kids, just ask her what she would do if some psycho were after them and all she had was the gun... if no kids, then postulate about a rapist in the neighborhood and how killing him with the gun would seriously stop him.
IMO, it’s the ‘nurture’ aspect of the woman that’s kicking in when she says that; presenting the children scenario puts that nature toward the correct usage of the gun.
{IE frame it in more of an emotional context so she can understand.}
did you ask her why she wants it then? If its not to kill, then is it because she’s afraid? Has your neighborhood changed?
Women don’t usually decide they want a gun just because it would be a nice accessory. So do a little digging.
If you both decide she should get one, Smith & Wesson makes a nice .38 Stainless Steel ‘Airweight’. Small, so it fits a woman’s smaller hand, no buttons to push or levers to move around. You pull the trigger and it kills the thing you pointed at.
Beat you by 2 minutes.
Get her a rifle so she can do this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqYznDU1gY
” Not to kill? Get her a .22! “
A few years ago, FNC had a story (and ran the film clip an average of 4 times/hr for three straight days) about a disgruntled client (?) accosting a lawyer outside of a California courthouse - and shooting him multiple times (7 hits, if memory serves) without major permanent damage....
You *can* kill with a .22, but you have to be very good, or very lucky.....
LOL luv ya Johnny
“She needs to know that shooting to hurt just doesn’t work.”
I know nothing about firearms. But what is the empirical basis for your claim? I thought law enforcement officers, in particular, were trained to shoot to disable, rather than kill, their targets. Presumably the risk of killing is always present, and this risk should not inhibit expeditious use of the firearm when warranted. But all other things being equal, is a dead assailant truly better than an effectively disabled one? Not trying to be combative: I seriously want to understand how one would arrive at this conclusion.
All of which is to say, IF one can be effectively trained to reliably disable a threat, I can understand the woman’s preferring a weapon that accomplishes that task over a weapon that dispenses with this possibility entirely in favor of tipping the odds of an encounter becoming lethal.
As a possibly less emotionally charged example, some people may well prefer a “catch and release” approach to dealing with a beaver that is creating havoc in a residential neighborhood over the alternative of killing the critter etc. So long as the trapped beaver can be released into an area sufficiently wild and remote to preclude its return to the neighborhood in question, it’s not obvious why killing it is the preferred approach.
Imho, more discussion is needed.
>>Get the handgun, replace the wife. But my advice may not be the best. I’ve been married at least 3 times that I know of.
/johnny <<
You clearly aren’t getting the right kind of gun...
Get her to go to a shooting range. Tell her to target certain areas on a body that won’t kill but will surely stop someone in their tracks ; )
Don’t bother. IMO, if she’s not willing to save her own life by killing the predator, she shouldn’t have a gun. He’ll only wrest it out of her hands and use it to kill her.
your going about it the wrong way, She has just given you permission to buy her the gun you alwas wanted. then if she is not happy with it you could tack it over just to be nice.
Sorry, I'm missing something here. She wants a gun that won't kill someone?
Maybe a Red Ryder BB gun is what she needs. Just instruct her not to aim at the eyes.
FMCDH(BITS)
He wore in his belt an old original “Allen” revolver, such as irreverent people called a “pepper-box.” Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an “Allen” in the world. But George’s was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, “If she didn’t get what she went after, she would fetch something else.” And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon—the “Allen.” Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.
Mark Twain
Roughing It
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.