>>I was wondering about its suitability
>>as an actual...I suppose the term would be 'Personal Defense Weapon'?
>
>As it happens, PDW in all caps is a newfangled jargon phrase for a
>particular type of military shoulder arm, somewhere between a
>submachine gun and an assault rifle. They're in vogue nowadays as the
>type of weapon to be issued to rear-area troops—artillerists,
>truck drivers, and the like—who previously would've been issued
>either SMGs or, if you go far enough back in history, carbines.

Hah! And here's me thinking I was being all clever and technical term-y! :)

>But that aside, generally speaking you would not want to rely
>on this, or any other .22, for personal security. Attitudes about
>where the lower bound for that kind of thing are vary, and have
>changed a lot over the last hundred years or so. As mentioned in a
>number of other GotWs, the .32 ACP/7.65mm Short cartridge used to be
>the go-to for defensive handguns (both civilian and military/police),
>but nowadays it would be considered underpowered for that role. Most
>modern authorities insist on .380 ACP/9mm Short at a bare minimum, and
>really recommend the full 9mm Parabellum if it can be managed. There
>are a number of well-made 9mm pistols on the market today that are as
>compact and handy as the .32s of yesteryear, though I don't own any
>myself.

I remember something else from years ago; a batman comic that said Commissioner Gordon doesn't give his men 9mms (I think it was) so that any shots his cops miss don't hit a kid a half mile away. I think it was a thing set during or near the No Mans Land event.

>>A fancy-looking gun for newbies to cut their teeth on before they get
>>into 'real' guns, as it were? It certainly fits the first part!
>
>Like I said, I think it's partly meant for that and partly intended to
>appeal as well to the experienced target shooter looking for the New
>Hotness. Guns have fashion trends just like cars and electronics, and
>the tactical raygun look is in right now.

It almost-sorta-not-really looks to me like it may be wanting in on the NuRobocop market. It has a super vague (to me at least) 'modern Auto-9' look to it.

>>I've been leery about going to a firing range and trying out a gun
>>ever since I saw an episode of CSI (I forget which flavor) that had a
>>novice shooter get 'bitten' by the....damn I forget the term. The
>>slide? Feels like theres another word for it - In the bit between his
>>thumb and forefinger, and I've been afraid of that happening to me;
>>it's a rather sensitive spot to get bitten by a fairly heavy spring
>>throwing around - what, a half pound of metal?
>
>That can happen, although it's generally a consequence of carelessness
>or poor technique these days. The Colt M1911 (old Army sidearm) and
>Browning Hi-Power (see relevant GotW) have reputations as biters, in
>both cases largely because they were designed not to be held with as
>high a grip as is fashionable nowadays. (I've never experienced the
>Browning bite myself, though I did once whack my thumb in good shape
>with the bolt of a Ruger .22.) The Browning designs bite by pinching
>the thumb web with their hammers, though, not actually cutting into
>the shooter's hand with the slide rails. No gun that did that
>as a matter of course would survive long on the market; people who
>have that happen to them (and it does happen) were just plain Doing It
>Wrong.

Yeah, it was pretty specifically a first time shooter if I recall the episode. I think it may have also been a shooter firing 'gangsta style' because I remember there also being a burn from an ejected cartridge on his arm, and they used the bite to prove he was the shooter, not just a bystander. I could be conflating two different episodes tho, it's been *years*. Basically a newbie being a moron, and he got doubly hurt for it.

>Not Doing It Wrong is a big part—arguably the biggest
>part— of recreational shooting, and training should reflect
>that. It's a fine line between fearing the weapon (which does the
>operator no good) and not respecting it (which does no one any
>good), and it's not easy to teach. And it's very true that semiautos
>are disconcerting to a lot of people specifically because of the issue
>you mention, that there is a significant amount of mass moving briskly
>around simply by the way they work. It's hard to forget that every
>time you fire, you're depending on the skill of the designer and the
>quality of the materials to keep a big piece of metal from flying into
>your eye. (Which is one of the reasons smart shooters wear safety
>glasses.)

Firearms safety I think I DO know, despite not handling one before;

* Safety on at all times unless actively shooting
* keep it unloaded unless you intend to shoot
* don't point a gun at, or in the vague direction of, anything you don't mind being shot including yourself
* finger off the trigger unless you are shooting
* SERIOUSLY, DON'T POINT THE GODDAMN THING AT ANYTHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DIE
* always treat the gun as if it's loaded, even if you know it's not

....one or two of those may be firing range rules and not general firearms safety, but they all sound like a good idea to follow to me.

>I've never taught a complete raw novice to shoot, but I think if I
>did, I would do it like my grandfather did with me and start with
>something single-shot. Then, perhaps, move on to revolvers. Save
>semiautos for the 200-level course. :)

Are there any of those that aren't antiques in personal collections these days? Those seem like they'd be hard to rent at the range.