Gyroscopic Investing

The eternal debate of the Glock vs 1911 and the 9mm vs the 45ACP have made it to an investment forum.  My life has gone full circle.

Glock vs 1911

Both are utterly reliable
Both require maintenance
Both shoot every popular round

This choice for me literally comes down to grip, external safety, and trigger pull. The 1911 wins handily in these areas.

9mm vs the 45ACP

Both really on shot placement skill, no matter what
You can carry more 9mm than 45ACP
45ACP will make a bigger hole, plain and simple
45ACP penetrate barriers, like a car door or windshield if you shoot FMJ like I do

The reason the 45ACP was invent was to stop drugged up Filipinos who already have tourniquets on charging you.  Also, no matter what you shoot it is about shot placement.  These two points make me choose the 45ACP.

Bean wrote: 45ACP penetrate barriers, like a car door or windshield if you shoot FMJ like I do

Both will do that handily:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3.htm

Bean wrote: The reason the 45ACP was invent was to stop drugged up Filipinos who already have tourniquets on charging you.

True, but it was replacing the .38 long colt, which averaged 150-200 foot-pounds of energy. The .45 ACP round that replaced it averaged 414 foot-pounds of energy. But a 9mm has 380-450 ft/lbs of energy behind it. And this is all firing ball ammunition. If you compare hollow point rounds of all the calibers, the differences shrink even more because their expanded sizes are pretty close. That's not even getting into +P ammunition which can make the humble 9mm a real rocket.

Take another look at that one-shot-stop graph:




I'm not bashing .45 ACP here; it's a great round. But modern bullet designs and powders have substantially reduced its advantage over the smaller, faster bullets. The advantage you gain by carrying a .45 ACP over a .40 S&W, 9mm, or .38 is likely to be vanishingly small. In the end, all pistol calibers will serve you much better than having no gun, but much worse than having any long arm.

Not sure about the source for that graph but it seems to contradict Evan Marshall's exhaustive study of stopping power.

If you ever want an interesting item to use for target practice, get an old bowling pin.

A bowling pin will tell you a lot about how strong a round is.  If it can damage a bowling pin, it can damage just about anything.

Here's another interesting site: http://gunssavelives.net/

There you can find links to news stories of real-life incidents of armed self-defense. Notice how many involve no shots being fired. Many times the mere sight of a gun is enough to make the aggressor surrender or run away!

Pointedstick wrote: Here's another interesting site: http://gunssavelives.net/

There you can find links to news stories of real-life incidents of armed self-defense. Notice how many involve no shots being fired. Many times the mere sight of a gun is enough to make the aggressor surrender or run away!

I could add a story of my own to that site.

I'd love to hear suggestions on the best ways to secure guns for those with young children in the house.

One day at a time wrote: I'd love to hear suggestions on the best ways to secure guns for those with young children in the house.

Personally, I store a loaded handgun and extra magazines in a quick-release safe and keep the rest of the guns locked up with bicycle locks through the actions. Every once in a while I consider picking up one of those fancy biometric safes, which are even easier and faster to open up in a hurry.

One day at a time wrote: I'd love to hear suggestions on the best ways to secure guns for those with young children in the house.

I think that having small children in the house is a valid reason not to have firearms in the house.

You have to really weigh the probability of a gun being useful in a self-defense situation against the risk that a child could somehow get their hands on it.

There are many other things you can do to protect your home from criminals that don't require a firearm.  If you can put yourself into a criminal's state of mind for about 15 minutes, you will see many ways to make your house unattractive to them.

i would rather be a porcupine than a rabbit, and I would rather be a skunk than a porcupine.

MediumTex wrote: There are many other things you can do to protect your home from criminals that don't require a firearm.  If you can put yourself into a criminal's state of mind for about 15 minutes, you will see many ways to make your house unattractive to them.

Do tell.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: There are many other things you can do to protect your home from criminals that don't require a firearm.  If you can put yourself into a criminal's state of mind for about 15 minutes, you will see many ways to make your house unattractive to them.

Do tell.

Many years ago I was a lodger in a house in a part of the UK with an extremely high burglary rate. The owner of the house never ever even locked the door. He sometimes left it open. The house did look a bit wild and they had several large dogs. I think the owner gave off the impression that he would exact personal vengence if anyone broke (walked) in and also that the house didn't contain anything that wasn't both cheap and broken.

One day at a time wrote: I'd love to hear suggestions on the best ways to secure guns for those with young children in the house.

When household guns are outlawed (or so secure as to not be readily available), only outlaw children will own guns. Never know when your children will have their own gun, so I keep mine under the mattress for self protection (right next to my cash). 

A large dog is a well known deterrent to housebreaking. I imagine it's better as a deterrent than a gun since a dog advertises its presence early and fast whereas a gun may not become visible until the criminals are in your home and at close quarters.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: There are many other things you can do to protect your home from criminals that don't require a firearm.  If you can put yourself into a criminal's state of mind for about 15 minutes, you will see many ways to make your house unattractive to them.

Do tell.

Good lighting and a lack of concealed approaches and getaway routes is a good deterrent.

Appearing to not have anything worth stealing is a good strategy.

Being polite to neighborhood teenagers is a good idea.

A good monitored burglar alarm is prudent.

A dog is good.

Glass storm doors are a real PITA to someone who planned on just kicking in your door.  You really can't kick in a sturdy glass storm door.

Take a look at what measures your neighbors have taken and take just a few more in a way that would make a criminal more likely to select another house.

Let's not forget that cat burglars are not the only people who might break into your house.  Somebody you've never met may just as easily follow your wife home from the grocery store.

Coffee wrote: Let's not forget that cat burglars are not the only people who might break into your house.  Somebody you've never met may just as easily follow your wife home from the grocery store.

I would say that avoiding flashy jewelry and very expensive purses and accessories is a good idea if you don't want to be targeted.

What about your hot-ass wife? 

MediumTex wrote: I would say that avoiding flashy jewelry and very expensive purses and accessories is a good idea if you don't want to be targeted.

Its fine not to display status and wealth, but....  alot of people do it with cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. that fit in with their peer group and its not like there is a crisis of home break ins and burglaries of such high status displaying individuals in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc...  By your implication, everyone shopping on famed Rodeo Drive is a cat burglars or thieve's wet dream.  I just find the disconnect between the meme and hum drum reality to be continually troubling.  If it was that disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective in displaying wealth and status, it would have been selected out long ago.

Coffee wrote: What about your hot-ass wife?   :o

You ain't getting no hot-ass wife by dressing like a poor bum, driving a beat up junker and living in a run down shack in the middle of the scorching desert all to avoid the theoretical risk of being burglarized.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I would say that avoiding flashy jewelry and very expensive purses and accessories is a good idea if you don't want to be targeted.

Its fine not to display status and wealth, but....  alot of people do it with cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. that fit in with their peer group and its not like there is a crisis of home break ins and burglaries of such high status displaying individuals in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc...  By your implication, everyone shopping on famed Rodeo Drive is a cat burglars or thieve's wet dream.  I just find the disconnect between the meme and hum drum reality to be continually troubling.  If it was that disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective in displaying wealth and status, it would have been selected out long ago.

Evolutionary, the wealthiest were typically the strongest too. In general though, violent crime is a poor-on-poor affair that takes place within racial groups. Casual and recriminatory violence is more commonplace and less shocking in lower-income circles, which encourages it to happen. Wealthier people simply don't tolerate violence. It is so shocking to them that they do not permit even a tiny bit of it and press for the police to vigorously catch and prosecute violent criminals.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Hi ... orRome.htm

Pointedstick wrote: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Hi ... orRome.htm

That was thought provoking...  and disturbing.

MachineGhost wrote:

Coffee wrote: What about your hot-ass wife?   :o

You ain't getting no hot-ass wife by dressing like a poor bum, driving a beat up junker and living in a run down shack in the middle of the scorching desert all to avoid the theoretical risk of being burglarized.

All I'm saying is perhaps keep a slightly lower profile within the norms of your own social group, and only if you want to do this.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I would say that avoiding flashy jewelry and very expensive purses and accessories is a good idea if you don't want to be targeted.

Its fine not to display status and wealth, but....  alot of people do it with cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. that fit in with their peer group and its not like there is a crisis of home break ins and burglaries of such high status displaying individuals in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, etc...  By your implication, everyone shopping on famed Rodeo Drive is a cat burglars or thieve's wet dream.  I just find the disconnect between the meme and hum drum reality to be continually troubling.  If it was that disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective in displaying wealth and status, it would have been selected out long ago.

I am a little biased because I don't care for flashy demonstrations of wealth in general, so the crime risk reduction angle is perhaps just a pretext for doing something I already wanted to do.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Hi ... orRome.htm

That was thought provoking...   and disturbing.

That was a good read.

From that link:

Many both honestly (and drunkenly) believe that they can still talk down to a barbarian who offends them a'la Roman customs. These young Romans fail to recognize the power and status displays of the person they are offending. Then they are surprised when they end up in the hospital.

People who "talk down" to others (or even think down about them) will go to hell IMO. I'm otherwise an atheist but I'll believe in hell for that purpose .