Paul Harrell is a fairly unassuming man who does sensible analysis in YouTube videos. In a "Top 5 Handguns" video he did this year, taking the current situation--"civil unrest"--into account, he includes a .22 full-size look-alike of the M9, based on the ability to carry more ammo in the event of having to foot his way out of a situation. (Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0HnA4oLxk ) I disagree, based on the following:
1. Caliber is simply insufficient. (This is reflected a few times later in this list.) 2. With caliber that small, a smaller pistol doesn't cost you that much in power when compared to weight savings. (I recognize deterrent value of M9 look-alike, but the scenario expressed would involve either CCW or other people with heavier firepower.) 3. Legalities--legitimate or imagined by liberal authorities--whereby .22 is not strong enough to be justified as "defensive." Consider NJ, where "less-lethal" shotgun rounds are effectively banned. 4. Too likely to only wound. This would create humanitarian issues regarding treatment of enemies, and would leave witnesses to testify against you and sue you for personal injury. 5. If you're approaching situation with only a .22, you will be driven to greatly limit engagement--thereby reducing ammo needs and mitigating the smaller-round benefit. It's a more positive application on the "Burn Notice" line: "Guns make people stupid." (I know, I know, but take it in concept, not morality or political argument.) If you have to firepower to engage, you're more likely to initiate engagement; if you don't--as with only having a .22)--you're less likely, and thus would be better advised to put the weight savings toward other necessities.
POLITICAL ADDENDUM: He also fails to include a .45 of some sort in his list, an absolute requirement in the coming MAGA War is support of our 45th POTUS.
