ljnowell
Member
AS USUAL AND IN TYPICAL FASHION THESE THREADS ALWAYS END POORLY!
I feel a lock being closed fairly soon on this one...
Yeah go figure. It seems according to some no one should ever bother carrying a gun, it's just too risky.
AS USUAL AND IN TYPICAL FASHION THESE THREADS ALWAYS END POORLY!
I feel a lock being closed fairly soon on this one...
A justified shooting is a justified shooting.
AS USUAL AND IN TYPICAL FASHION THESE THREADS ALWAYS END POORLY!
I feel a lock being closed fairly soon on this one...
Actually, a more accurate statement would be that "a justified shooting is a justified shooting after the police, prosecutors, and perhaps a judge and jury have decided that it's a justified shooting." While I'm sure we all want to be on the side of the angels, a person who shoots another does not get to decide if said shooting was justified.bluetopper said:A justified shooting is a justified shooting.
I don't presume to speak for the other posters, but that's all I'm trying to achieve by participating in this thread: to make sure that those who read the thread are given a reasonably accurate picture of the issues involved in using handloads. If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.Vodoun da Vinci said:. . . .I'll use my own for SD and take the risks others think I may be incurring. It's an informed choice.
Actually, from the legal perspective, these present a variety of different issues and legal pitfalls. I view them this way:buck460XVR said:. . . . The question comes down to, do you think that handloaded ammo will turn a real case of SD into a murder charge any more than a trigger job, custom firearm, hours of range practice, tactical training or the use of factory ammo and laser sights that are constantly advertised to be BG killers in most common firearm mags?
.
If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.
.
Actually, from the legal perspective, these present a variety of different issues and legal pitfalls. I view them this way:
- handloads -- evidence issue (see above)
- trigger job -- not so much a SD issue, but could be an issue in a potential negligence case
- custom firearm -- depends on how it's customized (Punisher grips = image problem; Night sights -- I don't see a problem)
[*]hours of range practice -- in theory, could be a "wannabe cop" argument used to sway the jury, but I don't see that one as holding too much water- tactical training -- see "hours of range practice" above
- laser sights -- Off the top of my head, I don't see a problem
The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal. I'm not disparaging anyone else's opinion or choices in this matter by saying that. I am saying that this isn't "a matter of opinion" in the same way the choice of what color to paint the living room is. I don't tell my mechanic how to fix my transmission, and he doesn't tell me how to write a federal motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.buck460XVR said:Exactly...and their choice should not justify nor contradict the validity of the choice made by others. One needs to make the correct choice for them. Folks need to realize that choice, if different than their own, does not make their choice wrong.Spats McGee said:If one chooses to carry handloads after gaining some understanding of the issues, that's their call to make.
Exactly...and their choice should not justify nor contradict the validity of the choice made by others. One needs to make the correct choice for them. Folks need to realize that choice, if different than their own, does not make their choice wrong.
The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal.
In some cases, it might be "just an opinion or theory." In others, it's an "opinion or theory" based on many years of experience in that particular field. IOW, some of those "opinions or theories" are educated opinions and theories, and some are not.buck460XVR said:Spats McGee said:The problem, though, is that I see a great number of folks arguing to support their particular choice when it's obvious that they don't really understand the issues involved. While some may consider this "just a matter of opinion," I'd suggest that not all opinions are equal.
This is what many folks here suggest. That other's opinions do not have the same merit that theirs do. i.e.....me right, you wrong. Or, your opinion does not have the same merit as mine because it's obvious I know more than you. Any conclusion not based on fact or proof, is just an opinion or theory.
Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.buck460XVR said:When it comes to the use of handloads changing the outcome of a SD verdict, there is no proof, one way or the other. None. Nowhere.
It probably will, and maybe it even has, in some unreported case. I, however, do not care to be the test case.buck460XVR said:. . . .I believe at some point the judicial system whether on a state of federal level, will address this "grey" area of handloads and SD/HD.
I think it would be fair to say, however, that when all the details are finally understood, when the common knowledge fallacies about this issue are laid aside and the actual nugget of meat is observed (as illustrated, at least in a tangential, suggestive way, by the Bias case, which did not offer an definitive "answer" to these questions, by any stretch) the point becomes such a fine and unwonted one that it is not unreasonable to determine that any number of other factors shall be considered of greater weight when making choices.Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.
I'm not sure how the courts could rule "on the handloads issue" in a broad way except as has been suggested before, by eliminating the idea of GSR as admissible and illustrative in court, due to its perceived deficiencies as a concrete, conclusive, and incorruptible medium of evidence.It probably will, and maybe it even has, in some unreported case. I, however, do not care to be the test case.buck460XVR said:. . . .I believe at some point the judicial system whether on a state of federal level, will address this "grey" area of handloads and SD/HD.
It is indeed a very, very fine point, and I think it's fair to say that the odds of it making or breaking a case is so slim as to border on miniscule. Nonetheless, it exists. Given the odds of the GSR/handloads issue actually rearing its head, choosing handloads is not unreasonable, in and of itself. What I do think is unreasonable is simply declaring that "a good shoot is a good shoot," in the absence of actually understanding the problem.Sam1911 said:I think it would be fair to say, however, that when all the details are finally understood, when the common knowledge fallacies about this issue are laid aside and the actual nugget of meat is observed (as illustrated, at least in a tangential, suggestive way, by the Bias case, which did not offer an definitive "answer" to these questions, by any stretch) the point becomes such a fine and unwonted one that it is not unreasonable to determine that any number of other factors shall be considered of greater weight when making choices.Spats McGee said:Wrong. For starters, there are the rules of evidence and the body of caselaw that surrounds them. Then there's the Daniel Bias case, which is relevant.