this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
723 points (96.9% liked)
> Greentext
7554 readers
2 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
if it takes you 20 shots to neutralize a threat at point-blank, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun
5.7 is known to be pretty terrible for its "stopping power" for lack of a better term. Its a handgun round design to penetrate body armor. In doing so it had to make sacrifices in bullet dimensions and weight. It performs similarly to a .22 magnum round which is a frankly wimpy cartridge meant for small game like rabbits.
So 20 rounds to stop a human isn't stretching the truth too much.
Sounds like the wrong gun to carry for personal defense
Depends on what you’re defending against! Only people wearing kevlar body armor are cops, militants, and ice hockey goalies. I don’t know much about guns, but from the description you’re replying to this sounds like the right one for personal defense against wannabe fascist militias and overfunded/overarmed police forces. I agree it’s the wrong gun to defend against the defenseless, but shooting the defenseless is not what I think of when someone says “personal defense”.
The post literally talks about a mugger, if you really have armed militas just attacking people you might want to get out of the congo
Its a good gun to carry if you are worried about a spike of mall shooters in your area. Many of the incel mall shooter types commit their shootings in some sort of basic body armor. The 5.7 round would be better in that one case.
Still, just about everyone would be better off just getting a good reliable 9mm pistol of some sort.
The best self defense firearm is a small, dependable 9mm that you won't be sad about losing forever, should you ever need to use it.