why are people opposed to using factory ammo? Its fairly cheap to just buy a couple of boxes. You can still practice with your reloads and stuff. But whats wrong with some Speer Gold Dot or other decent stuff? Plus with reloads theres no decent seal, so if you were out and it was raining.......
CCW Recommendations. Thinking HK Tactical Compact in .45
- Thread starter Riflman
- Start date
I never meant to be critical, just pointing out slightly different views, some from experience. My post was intentionally general in nature, not specific to one issue such as handloads vs factory loads. It was primarily to provide some background to many other people following this thread.
As with everything, there are lots of different ways of confronting any situation. These are the choices we all have to make. My primary focus was to shed some light on possible post incident legal games.
Insurance specifically for CCW incidents in the US is available NOW. I was supposed to scan the brochure and send it to Safeguardguy in November, but I can't find the brochure.
I will look around again.
Cheers and stay safe.
As with everything, there are lots of different ways of confronting any situation. These are the choices we all have to make. My primary focus was to shed some light on possible post incident legal games.
Insurance specifically for CCW incidents in the US is available NOW. I was supposed to scan the brochure and send it to Safeguardguy in November, but I can't find the brochure.
I will look around again. Cheers and stay safe.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
There are four reasons that I can come up with:USP said:
1. You buy a lot of stuff and invest a lot of money to be self reliant and make your own stuff - a noble idea.
2. Your load sdon't precisely shoot the same as factory so your sights are off a bit. This is silly when it comes to CCW because almost every altercation will be a contact distance and you won't even use your sights.
3. Pure and simple unabashed pride.
4. It is technically cool to know how to do it.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Thanks for remembering Sand, I already got it in the mail. Cheers.
I am perfectly calm, and relaxed - and even a trifle amused. When somebody says "well, what about if this happened?", I'm going to give you an answer - that doesn't mean I'm angry or feel I'm being attacked. Would you expect that I merely sit here, saying nothing in reply?safeguardguy said:
This seems to be a perfectly rational discussion so far (even if we have mercilessly hijacked this thread). If somebody wants to suggest a state attorney is going to have leverage to attack somebody on the basis of the quality or ballistic capabilities of a reload, then I am going to answer that - not just leave it hanging as though there is no rebuttal.
I do trust them. You shouldn't.First; You almost have me believing I would trust your product more than Winchester.
I don't trust ANYBODY else's handloads, unless I know them very well and know how they do their reloading. There's far too many sloppy reloaders out there, whether they're reloading for trap or whatever. I think that's a rule that everyone who shoots should apply.
I am not now (nor is anyone an expert witness or their evidence expert until ruled so by the judge, Canada or the US), but what makes you assume that I (or anyone else) cannot "pass muster" to be recognized as an expert witness in a US court?Second; sorry, you are not an expert. I know that pisses you off
Kumho vs Carmichael is relevant in a number of other issues that have been before the courts of late, and I'm sufficiently aware of it to be able to find it. I won't bore the audience to tears with a discussion of the case, but as I'm sure you have a copy of it in your teaching materials, you can PM me with what you see in that decision that excludes me from being recognized as an expert in reloading, recreational GPS use, or any other subject I have significant knowledge and experience of. Because, if I recall correctly, the USC held that the lower court erred in disallowing the evidence of the expert in question because it was only experience/skill based. And furthermore, that the gatekeeping obligations relating to expert witnesses/evidence apply not only to scientific testimony, but to all, and the relevant rule of evidence does not discern between specialized/expert knowledge and experience, technical knowledge, or scientific knowledge. And finally (correct me if I'm wrong), in that decision the expert's evidence was tossed out not because he didn't have the scientific/technical background, but because his methodology was unreliable.
Not at all - I expect the probability of having my actions examined in court, with or without handloads. And whether or not my handgun is a "combat masterpiece" or "cobra" or any other name. After all, Ayoob is also published as warning people about having firearms with names like "Cobra" because he knows of instances where DA's have attempted to use the very name of a firearm to demonize the person whose defensive shooting is being examined.
Will anyone guarantee me that not having handloads or a firearm with a nasty sounding name will keep me out of court and the $30,000 in my wallet? I doubt you will, and I doubt anyone else will want to extend me that guarantee either.
I also suspect that while you might be warning your students against using handloads, you're not warning them against using firearms with threatening sounding names like "cobra", "python", "combat masterpiece", etc. Why aren't you doing that? After all, isn't that another identified unnecessary chance like using handloads that could result in somebody spending an extra $30k to prove the name didn't mean they had evil intent? My guess would be most self defense instructors aren't worrying about THAT "what if" because they just don't see it that likely to become an issue in court.
It still - and always will - come down to relative risk. We can find a few cases out of all the defensive shootings in the last couple of decades where somebody has been dragged the extra mile in court because they used handloads. We can find a few cases out of all the defensive shootings in the last couple of decades where somebody has been dragged the extra mile in court because they had a firearm with an aggressive name like "cobra" or "combat masterpiece". But I hope that at the very least we can agree that these instances are so bloody rare that if you applied statistical analysis to how often they occur in the total population of defensive shooting, they don't even approach statistical significance.
If we don't agree on their rarity, send me the press clippings. Please.
Or have firearms with evil sounding names like "cobra" or "combat master", right? Or attend schools with evil sounding names like "Lethal Force Institute".? Or have ever posted an email cheering when the good guy took the bad guy out...? Or maybe emails critical of governments and laws that might be used to make you appear radical/anti-social?
There's a big difference between being seen everywhere with a "make my day" t-shirt and carrying the ammunition you recreationally and competitively shoot with all the time and which uses the same bullets as in police ammunition but at lower velocities. We're not talking about overpressure loads here, with drops of cyanide in the nose cavity...
I might be wrong, but I think you're taking some pretty big extremes in individual behavior and comparing them to handloads. By the way, do you figure those who carry a backup gun, along with maybe an ASP and a "combat light" are also opening themselves up to being dragged an extra mile? What is the limit in extra magazines a person should carry before being concerned with being dragged through court because they had a provocative amount of ammunition? (I confess, I only carry what's in the handgun).
At the end of the day, if you encounter a state attorney that is truly out to drag you into court, he will find something. It might be handloads, or the fact your handgun is a "cobra", or your emails on public forums. Perhaps it will be your interest in militaria, or the fact you shoot three gun matches, or maybe the T-shirt you were wearing, or perhaps even the fact you have a history of attending tactical training courses far above what the local police get. But if he does want your ass in court, he will get it there, one way or another. Anyone who thinks they are avoiding such a trip at the hands of a state attorney such as this just because they avoid handloads, T-shirts, firearms with aggressive names, etc, is deluding themselves.
For sure. Now, if I'm not saying anything to begin with, just how are they going to instantly realize "Hey! This guy is using HANDLOADS"? Anyone want to bet some cash as to whether or not they can tell the difference between handloads in new cases and factory ammo?
BTW, in what percentage of defensive shootings is any ballistic testing done?
Nah. First, I'm just providing responses to the flurry of "what if" questions; I felt they deserved that much. After all, I wasn't the one who brought up the lawsuit prosecution "what if's" - I just replied to them.They just want to efficiently defeat a criminal threat and go home without any extra orifaces in their bodies.
Second, I'm just not worried about being the fact I carry handloads being the deciding factor, or the fact my handgun has "combat masterpiece" written on it, or the fact my handgun has a laser which means I could have shot him in the shoulder instead of squarely through the sternum, etc.
Any of these things might happen. But of course, I might be struck by lightening too. Risk assessment.
Yeah, he's aggressively pro-Second Amendment, and some of them would just prefer he just leave sleeping dogs lie. If the restrictions aren't TOO onerous, then don't annoy the government. That's the main thrust of what I heard.
And the BCI staff - these would be some of the same ones who have spoken out saying Utah should quit licensing non-residents for CCW, correct?
Bzzzt, wrong answer. The people who will be judging any shooting that I do will be from Montana, or possibly Idaho, not Utah.
And I'm reasonably sure not only will they not give a rat's ass whether or not my handgun had my target practice ammunition in it, they probably won't care whether or not it has "combat masterpiece" or "cobra" written on it either. California has not arrived in Montana just yet.
Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you and suggest that maybe you were a bit too defensive.
Let's remember that I'm not trying to persuade YOU what to do or or what to teach. On the contrary, you are putting considerable efforrt into trying to convince me I'm wrong in my individual decision without knowing anything of my background, training, and qualifications. You're welcome to try and do just that, and the discussion is interesting, but don't confuse my willingness to challenge what you are telling me as being "over sensitive".
As you should - and you will note that I have never suggested you do otherwise. Anything else than following that direction would probably leave you wide open to lawsuits based on negligence and/or due diligence. And that is as it should be; I have yet to see a course that was not developed to address the lowest common denominator in the expected pool of students. You teach to the bottom and work your way up, not start at the top and work your way up.
I will, meanwhile you can send me your Kumho references and a reasonable list of all the people who have been dragged through courts because their use of handloads became an issue. Or the name of their handgun for that matter.Now go to the range and blast away with some of that great "Rickchester Ammo".
I didn't take it that way. However, I also felt the rebuttal to those views deserved airing as well, and people can sort out from that what they will.SandRoad said:
Nobody will ever find me claiming people in general should be using handloads; in fact if I was making a general statement I would say exactly the opposite. However, I am quite comfortable with what works for me personally and my individual assessment of the situation.
Now that is quite interesting. Is it through the folks running the self defense association/magazine/whatever?Insurance specifically for CCW incidents in the US is available NOW. I was supposed to scan the brochure and send it to Safeguardguy in November, but I can't find the brochure.
Cheers and stay safe.
If you find that, fire me a link to the info; it would be much appreciated. If it's anything like the rates the NFA gets insurance at, it's basically pocket change that nobody should even think twice about.
General reasons, not person specific reasons?USP said:
How many rounds of that specific ammunition do you intend to run through that 1911 of yours before saying it feeds utterly reliably with that particular ammunition? Pick your expert, and you'll get different answers. The INS testing of their .40 S&W ammunition was 1500 rounds in each of three firearms. So let's see... if 20 rounds of Federal Personal Defense cartridges just cost me $12, that's $60 per 100, or $900 US per 1500. So you can: a) invest the money in reliability testing or b) fire a few magazines full and then trust all will be okay if The Moment ever happens. Of course, there is now an outside chance you may have a failure because it isn't quite as reliable as you hoped - but take heart, it's no more likely than the possibility you would be dragged through court because you used handloads.
Your sights remain the same for carry, recreational shooting, practice, and competition. Because if you are a shooter, your handloads WILL be adjusted to point of aim, and the chance the stuff you shoot week in and week out has the same point of impact as commercial stuff is small. Of course, we can say it probably won't matter because any shooting is likely to be at contact distance anyway. Which then has to lead us to ask why we even bother to have sights to begin with, spend much time on target practice, invest in night sights, etc? If we're going to cover the "what if's" when worrying about being dragged through court with handloads, aren't we equally as concerned about the "what if's" if a shooting ISN'T at contact ranges? That's a rhetorical question that each individual has to answer.
Some people have experienced dud factory rounds because flash holes were missing or other manufacturing defects. So they want ammunition where they have personally inspected each and every case, primer, bullet, and powder charge. Defective factory rounds are rare - about as rare as being dragged through court for using handloads. So pick your poison.
Some people handload because they don't feel the factory ammunition is hot enough. I don't know quite what to say to that...
Some do it simply because they can.
There's a few. Hang around Internet discussions of this subject long enough and you'll hear all kinds of reasons why - and why not.
Have you ever thrown some handloads in a bowl of water and then tried them every 12 hours to see when you start having misfires? Give it a try and then let me know how long it took to get misfires and we'll compare results. Suffice it to say most people won't let their personal defense weapon remain totally immersed in water that long without paying any attention to it. If it really concerns anyone for any intended use of handloads, they do make sealant for those out there who worry about such things.
I'd be more concerned about primers/powder being contaminated with lubricants in the loading process - and that occasionally happens with factory ammunition too (and with reloads by those to careless/lazy to keep lubricants away from cases, powder, and primers).
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Nah, this is moving past rational discussion to senseless prattle. I have enjoyed our exchange but it has taken on a lot of double talk and is picking at symantics. This is silly debate such that lawyers or a politicians would engage. Debating anything everywhich way.
I only have time for these few points. In answer to your statement/question. Police do and will seize your firearm into evidence and do ballistics testing on it everytime.
You use the word "attack", defend how there is nothing wrong with people using handloads, and painstakingly attend to how meticulously high quality your loads are and how factory ammo fails at times. I applaud your efforts, and make clear that there is no attack here, then you say that I shouldn't trust your hand loads???
You denigrate all the "what ifs" as being to remote to consider and poor risk assessement, then you underscore remote happenings and what ifs in your arguments???
You suggest that a lawyer won't leverage ammunition selection; it is far to remote. Then aquisce that lawyers do and will use anything to get you if they want???
I have indicated that your loads and loading expertise is impressive and do what you want, then you suggest that I am trying to convince you not to use your hand loads???
You advocate hand loads for personal defense saying it won't make any difference, then state that many reloaders are just an accident waiting to happen. Then you pronounce that an Instructor should teach from the "bottom up", for the group. That for liability and other reasons we should discourage the use of reloads. Then you seem piqued that I am extolling that consensus on a public posting???
Not withstanding wanting to answer your points I am led to ask; "How many more laps can a dead horse run?" I think we have beat this one to death and repetition is a waste of keystrokes.
It is in evidence that the general consensus is not to use hand loads for a number of reasons. That is good enough for me adn appropriate for nearly all CCW students. Good on ya for advocating reloads. Looking forward to meeting you and talking to you in the future but life is to short to type on about this. Besides, me thinks the natives are getting tired of us.
Folks you have your thread back.
I only have time for these few points. In answer to your statement/question. Police do and will seize your firearm into evidence and do ballistics testing on it everytime.
You use the word "attack", defend how there is nothing wrong with people using handloads, and painstakingly attend to how meticulously high quality your loads are and how factory ammo fails at times. I applaud your efforts, and make clear that there is no attack here, then you say that I shouldn't trust your hand loads???
You denigrate all the "what ifs" as being to remote to consider and poor risk assessement, then you underscore remote happenings and what ifs in your arguments???
You suggest that a lawyer won't leverage ammunition selection; it is far to remote. Then aquisce that lawyers do and will use anything to get you if they want???
I have indicated that your loads and loading expertise is impressive and do what you want, then you suggest that I am trying to convince you not to use your hand loads???
You advocate hand loads for personal defense saying it won't make any difference, then state that many reloaders are just an accident waiting to happen. Then you pronounce that an Instructor should teach from the "bottom up", for the group. That for liability and other reasons we should discourage the use of reloads. Then you seem piqued that I am extolling that consensus on a public posting???
Not withstanding wanting to answer your points I am led to ask; "How many more laps can a dead horse run?" I think we have beat this one to death and repetition is a waste of keystrokes.
It is in evidence that the general consensus is not to use hand loads for a number of reasons. That is good enough for me adn appropriate for nearly all CCW students. Good on ya for advocating reloads. Looking forward to meeting you and talking to you in the future but life is to short to type on about this. Besides, me thinks the natives are getting tired of us.
Folks you have your thread back.
- Location
- Southeastern Michigan
pimlott said:
pimlott, the Star PD was highly regarded in the late 80s and early 90s. I have a Star BM, it is: a little bigger than a Walther PP, a little heavy, but a real jewel. I hope you have as much luck with your Star as I have had with mine. Regards, Richard
My hard chromed Star BM with Hakan grips:
- Location
- Southern Ontario
I have spoken to a few legal beagles about handloads for self defence loads and the reaction was quite simple; first, it is defendable in court by a good defence attorney. They would tear apart and ridicult the argument that handloads are 'mankillers', etc.
Having said that, do you really want to muddy the waters at all? At $1,000 an hour plus, how muddy do you want it?
Rather, spend the few extra bucks and use what the local police, FBI, OPP, RCMP, DOJ or whomever are using... exactly. And your loads are not an issue any longer. "Your honour, my client was using exactly what the local police use... is my esteemed colleague here accusing THEM of using mankiller ammunition?".
I probably missed the point of the thread here, but I sure like to hear myself talking. Thanks!
Having said that, do you really want to muddy the waters at all? At $1,000 an hour plus, how muddy do you want it?
Rather, spend the few extra bucks and use what the local police, FBI, OPP, RCMP, DOJ or whomever are using... exactly. And your loads are not an issue any longer. "Your honour, my client was using exactly what the local police use... is my esteemed colleague here accusing THEM of using mankiller ammunition?".
I probably missed the point of the thread here, but I sure like to hear myself talking. Thanks!
Rick said:
- Location
- where it rains
ive never fired one but ive held one before, the sights are really nice on them and while i found it heavier than the glock the weight was fine and the ambi mag release was very nice i dont think silencers are legal though,heh what else can you screw on to it?
Read this part again. In fact, do it ten times. Then add that if anyone wants to go there, the defense counsel could also respond by arguing that handloads tended to exculpate their client. Then ask why we keep having to have the discussion over this dire warning again, and again, and again...torontogunguy said:
Given the fact I have heard exactly THREE instances actually cited which use of handloads even became an issue in court in the 25 years or so this "better not use handloads" issue is being batted about, it's pretty obvious that your chances of requiring a lawyer due to using handloads amounts to the chances of winning the lottery grand prize. If you can add to the list of known trials where use of handloads became a negative issue at trial, please do so.
These dire warnings are what "muddy the waters". If you end up in court after a shooting, it AIN'T going to be because you used handloads. Thousands of defensive uses of firearms each year with handloads in handguns, shotguns, and rifles... and the Chicken Little types have managed to find THREE instances where handloads were even just an associated issue at trial. It makes about as much sense as buying into Wendy Cukier or Sarah Brady warning you that if you have a firearm for self defense, it will only be used against you.
If we really think that the use of handloads is an identifiable risk, let's assess other risks and then wisely decide not to carry at all. After all:
- You MIGHT be sued by the bad guy's family - and that happens with fair regularity, far more often than handloads are an issue at trial.
- You MIGHT be charged by police for excessive use of force. Also much more likely.
- You MIGHT miss and wound an innocent bystander who then sues you for all you've got. Also much more likely.
- You MIGHT have your firearm taken away from you and used against you. Yup, much more likely
- etc, etc...
First, I have no intention on stocking up on each brand of ammunition which happens to be used in the jurisdiction I'm currently in.
And if we're going to talk about silly "what if's", then let's not overlook this one: "Well your honour, in Canada, the RCMP in my jurisdiction only carry 9mms" - but I carried a .40 S&W" "Oh, as you can see jury, a 9mm wasn't lethal enough for this man" - he had to get a caliber so powerful the conservation officers where he lives use it to put down BEARS!"
Silly? Yes. But no sillier than worrying about carrying something other than what police carry.
Second, the jurisdiction I'm planning to emulate almost certainly did QC/QA with those lots of ammunition in THEIR firearms - but they certainly didn't do it with mine. If that same ammunition happens to make my pistol into a jam-o-matic, I should use it anyways because of concerns whether the court will approve or not if I don't? I don't think so.
Third, I HAVE done QC/QA with the handloads I carry. I have fired thousands of them and know that particular load performs flawlessly in both pistols it is used in without a bobble. Assuming you actually carry for any significant amount of time rather than theorizing about it, have YOU actually fired thousands of CorBon's, DoubleTap's, HydraShocks, etc in your firearm to confirm reliable functioning in what you carry? I suspect you haven't, and at what premium defense ammunition costs, I suspect not many have. Police have the luxury of their department doing their QC/QA for them - we don't have that luxury.
Now, you could simply take a chance, fire a magazine or two of those CorBon's, or DoubleTaps (assuming you found a place to legally buy them in Canada in the first place, rather than illegally exporting them from the US), and if your pistol doesn't jam, go "Good enough".
Of course, it would be irrational for a person that concerned with the risks of carrying handloads to be so cavalier about the reliability of the ammunition they were carrying, wouldn't it? If the handloads get you in trouble, you only have the jury to worry about - if your pistol jams, the outcome could be considerably more lethal.
Now, all of you who wouldn't carry handloads because of the legal risks, but who on the other hand have fired several thousand of their carry rounds for QC/QA purposes, please put up your hands... That's what I thought.
Fourth, I plink, do drills, and compete with the exact same loads I carry. I doubt many using the high end defense stuff can say they do the same thing.
All of the above is NOT a recommendation for carrying handloads. What it does is show that there are significant advantages to handloads that more than offset any theoretical legal risk.
Let's correct that statement:
Your loads will never be an issue in the first place - unless you're moronic enough to do stuff like fill the tips with cyanide, carve gruesome "x"s in them (although even that didn't get Jim Cirillo in trouble), etc.
You're taking a statement that has a statistical probability of happening that fails any known test of significance, treating as though it were a fact, and then wrapping an argument around it.
Oh God... it just never stops. This is just as likely:
"Your honour, my client isn't here today because we're not here today because ammunition is never the reason people end up in court".
"Your honour, my client was simply using the recreational ammunition that he has been known to use at the range for years in practice, competition, and for recreational shooting for fun."
"Your honour, my client was using ammunition that has the same bullet used in some police ammunition, but downloaded slightly in velocity so it has less power than the police ammunition has, but also less recoil so that it doesn't bother his wife."
"Your honour, my client was using ammunition that is far more accurate in his pistol than police ammunition, because he was concerned that the relatively inaccurate police ammunition if used in his gun might lead to an innocent bystander being struck."
"Your honour, my client was using ammunition other than that used by police, because police did not do QC/QA testing with that ammunition in his pistol, and it was less than reliable in functioning in his firearm."
Etc, etc, etc...
- Location
- Southern Ontario
Rick:
I'm not entirely clear on what you are trying to say here, but dont' wish to get into a heated debate over this thing; I am not an expert and I presume neither are you. What I offer is simply second hand information and personal opinion.
If anyone has any qualms about having handloads in their guns when the gun is (heaven forbid) used in self defense, any decent lawyer is going to be able to make it a non-issue. Any decent crown is going to try and make whatever they can get wrapped around the biggest issue they possibly can, adding to the condemnation.
That's it. That's all I wanted to say. Perhaps when I clarified my opinion by suggesting that using a standard 'self defense' load would also clarify the issue in court and remove and opportunity for the crown/state's attorney to cry 'foul... bad guy', I muddied the waters. First of all the situation to the north and south of the 49th. are almost completely different. You are probably entirely correct that north of the 49th. loading what you use at the range is what you want to do. Loading a 'man killer' can be construed, spin doctored, whatever you want to call it, by a good crown to show 'evil intent' ...
South of the border, where self defense is more pallatable, the state's attorney will use everything at his disposal to paint the accused (in this case, you, the shooter - right or wrong) as an evil person. Taint the jury's mind. Spin doctor. Use empathy and sympathy to your advantage. Play the emotion card. Etc. You can rest assured that any state's attorney worth his salt is going to say "FOUL! Self loaded mankiller bullets!" Whether they are, or not, is totally irrelevant.
That's all. Just to avoid leaving oneself open to invalid or spin doctored accusations of ANY sort, based on invalid information. You can win the battle and have the case thrown out of court to be sure. But my point was simply that you don't want to have to spend thousands of dollars to respond to such accusations as: he had his gun close at hand, he must have intended to use it to kill the first person that knocked at the door or trespasses on his property; he used a larger load than most other target shooters, he must have intended to use the gun to kill people; he used wadcutters; he used lead point; he used 'whatever'; his frame of mind must have been X... just look at the size of the magazine on his rifles; etc. etc.
My point was simply that while everything is probably defendable in court; the question is what is it going to cost you to defend it? I just finished a court case that cost in excess of a half million dollars. Guess what? It never even got to court! The other half paid an equal half million dollars to their lawyers. It never even got to court. And do you know why it never got to court? The truth of the matter is that it would have cost so much more at that point that there would have been no point in going to court as nothing would have been left. The only winners? The lawyers.
THAT is what I intended to say. Nothing more, really. Been there. Done that. And I have a gold studded T shirt.
Torontogunguy
I'm not entirely clear on what you are trying to say here, but dont' wish to get into a heated debate over this thing; I am not an expert and I presume neither are you. What I offer is simply second hand information and personal opinion.
If anyone has any qualms about having handloads in their guns when the gun is (heaven forbid) used in self defense, any decent lawyer is going to be able to make it a non-issue. Any decent crown is going to try and make whatever they can get wrapped around the biggest issue they possibly can, adding to the condemnation.
That's it. That's all I wanted to say. Perhaps when I clarified my opinion by suggesting that using a standard 'self defense' load would also clarify the issue in court and remove and opportunity for the crown/state's attorney to cry 'foul... bad guy', I muddied the waters. First of all the situation to the north and south of the 49th. are almost completely different. You are probably entirely correct that north of the 49th. loading what you use at the range is what you want to do. Loading a 'man killer' can be construed, spin doctored, whatever you want to call it, by a good crown to show 'evil intent' ...
South of the border, where self defense is more pallatable, the state's attorney will use everything at his disposal to paint the accused (in this case, you, the shooter - right or wrong) as an evil person. Taint the jury's mind. Spin doctor. Use empathy and sympathy to your advantage. Play the emotion card. Etc. You can rest assured that any state's attorney worth his salt is going to say "FOUL! Self loaded mankiller bullets!" Whether they are, or not, is totally irrelevant.
That's all. Just to avoid leaving oneself open to invalid or spin doctored accusations of ANY sort, based on invalid information. You can win the battle and have the case thrown out of court to be sure. But my point was simply that you don't want to have to spend thousands of dollars to respond to such accusations as: he had his gun close at hand, he must have intended to use it to kill the first person that knocked at the door or trespasses on his property; he used a larger load than most other target shooters, he must have intended to use the gun to kill people; he used wadcutters; he used lead point; he used 'whatever'; his frame of mind must have been X... just look at the size of the magazine on his rifles; etc. etc.
My point was simply that while everything is probably defendable in court; the question is what is it going to cost you to defend it? I just finished a court case that cost in excess of a half million dollars. Guess what? It never even got to court! The other half paid an equal half million dollars to their lawyers. It never even got to court. And do you know why it never got to court? The truth of the matter is that it would have cost so much more at that point that there would have been no point in going to court as nothing would have been left. The only winners? The lawyers.
THAT is what I intended to say. Nothing more, really. Been there. Done that. And I have a gold studded T shirt.
Torontogunguy
torontogunguy said:
BULLs**t.torontogunguy said:
This is nothing but Chicken Little crap - right up there with "if you have a gun for self protection, it will only be taken from you and used against you".
I've heard exactly THREE cases mentioned where the State made handloads an issue. Count 'em: three.
So, with decades of self defense incidents, and Kleck saying somewhere around two and a half million defensive uses every year, we come up with exactly... three.
Yes, three. Three whole instances. Cited over and over and over again. One would think that, with the passage of years and this terrible risk, a new list of court cases involving handloads would be cited as time goes by. But no, it's always the same three cases, year in and year out..
Millions of defensive uses each year would probably at the minimum give you at least 5000 defensive uses each year with handloads. Now multiply that by, say, 25 years. So we have at the very least 125,000 defensive uses with handloads and we have... THREE... instances that have been identified and cited where the state made an issue of handloads.
So... at most you have a .000024% chance that handloads will become a legal issue in a defensive shooting. If you think back to your university statistics courses, you'll realize you aren't even remotely close to having a high enough incidence to achieve any kind of statistical significance.
This "risk" is, to put it bluntly, fear mongering crap invariably put forward by people who can't identify instances where it has happened - other than the three that are brought up again, and again, and again. Odd how the cases cited never change, decade after decade, isn't it?
If I'm really supposed to take this seriously, be so good as to refer me to instances where this has become an issue at trial - other than the three that repeatedly get dredged up of course. I'll give you the names of those cases if you like, just so you know you're providing fresh information. My bet is that without help you can't even come up with the cases where it WAS an issue.
I'm surprised you even consider the idea of having a firearm for self defense.
You're more likely to have your firearm taken from you by an attacker than have handloads become an issue in court - why would you take the risk when the outcome is much more serious than dealing with a judge?
You're more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than have handloads become an issue in court - why would you risk the costs of defending such a lawsuit?
If you're that fearful, given the probability of handloads becoming a legal issue, I think the most logical and rational thing for you to do is simply leave the firearms in the gun safe.
I'm not interested in the fact you dress like Barry Manilow. I am, however, interested in your "been there, done that" comment. Please enlighten me in the trial you were involved in where handloads were used in self defense.
After all, I CCW in the US something like 150 days or more every year, so I'm kind of interested in hearing of your experiences with CCW and this instance where handloads were involved. I thought you were just repeating fear mongering fairy tales, but apparently I was mistaken.
So tell us your "been there, done that" story about using handloads; inquiring minds want to know.
BTW, how many rounds of your carry ammunition did you fire to confirm reliability?
