[Yosemitest]

Anytime someone pushes the .22 LR as a real weapon, it's a "tell".
As a concealed assignation toll for the back of the neck into the skull, it's effective, and it'll get you small game such as rabbits and squirrels, and maybe birds if you lead your target.
but for self defense and survival, it's a liberal's wet dream.
Get a real weapon, IF you want to live.

[Yosemitest]

CORRECTION: toll = TOOL

[Pollster1]

Anytime someone pushes the .22 LR as a real weapon, it's a "tell" . . . Get a real weapon, IF you want to live.

Yes . . . and no.

All other things being equal, I'd recommend that a healthy man age 21-55 in a gun-friendly state own real weapons: a 9 mm or .45 handgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, and a 30-06, 30-30, or .308 rifle, along with the .22LR rifle and/or handgun, and depend on the centerfire rifle for long-range defense and big game, the shotgun for home defense and waterfowl, and the pistol for carry. The .22 would be my last choice for self-defense. All other things are not necessarily equal. I have close friends who depend on Krav and other unarmed techniques because of local laws. I have relatives, including my father, who no longer shoot anything bigger than .22lr because of health constraints. There are a whole lot of adequate reasons for compromising on a .22lr, and planning to empty all 8/9/10/12/whatever chambers or a 25 round magazine if needed to stop a threat, given internal or external limitations.