SD/HD firearm and ammo choice.

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by axxe55, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. axxe55

    axxe55 Well-Known Member

    1,241
    0
    this topic was brought up on another forum and thought i would post a thread about it. should the choice of firearm or the ammo used in a justified shooting ever have any bearing on the outcome of a case where it's proven the case was justified?

    IMO, the firearm or ammo used should have no bearing, not even have any revelence as long as the shooting was justified and legal. my feeling is an intruder breaks into my home, well it's my house my rules so i get to make the rules and choose the desired firearm and ammo. if he dosn't like my rules, then break into someone else's house! my only goal is to protect my family and myself.

    would like to hear others thoghts on this subject.
     
  2. 28Shooter

    28Shooter Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting

    892
    5
    I agree with you Axxe, a justified shooting is a justified shooting, and if you cross the threshold of "my castle" (read - enter my home uninvited with criminal intent), my rules apply. I must say that I do agree with Massad Ayoob that it's probably easier to defend before a jury, a homeowner who defended his home with a Model 10 or Detective Special loaded with Winchester Silvertips over one who used a Python (Anaconda, Cobra, etc.) loaded with Golden Sabers or Black Talons. I know it's only a matter of a name but liberals aren't known for their comprehension skills.
     

  3. axxe55

    axxe55 Well-Known Member

    1,241
    0
    well we don't need to allow the liberals to set the rules! they can set their own rules when an intruder breaks into their home. and if they want to sit down with the intruder and make nice and offer them cream and sugar with their coffee, then they can. but my house, my rules. means i get to make the rules as i see fit. and my rules are simple, me and the wife surviving by whatever means are needed.
     
  4. tCan

    tCan Active Member

    33
    0
    My SD round for my 870 is regular fields loads with the payload replaced with 10 or 11 .22LR bullets. Basically the equivalent of #1 buck. I have no qualms about explaining the (re)load ability of cartridges in court.

    I could load it up with Skittles if I wanted to. Force them to taste the rainbow. :p
     
  5. Hyphenated

    Hyphenated Well-Known Member

    854
    0
    This subject has been written about extensively and I have read dozens if not hundreds of the articles. I have also had this topic reviewed at a CCW class I attended. While I agree with "my house, my rules" in theory. I would prefer my lawyer have as few battles as possible on his hands if I'm ever in this situation. I have been a student of the gun for 40 years. I have read zillions of magazine stories about which gun or which bullets are best for self-defense. The reality is there is very little difference in the number of shots needed to stop a fight with the major calibers regardless of ammo. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter what you use to stop an intruder, but we don't live in a perfect world. To a jury the words 'makes his own ammo' or 'reloads bullets' sounds extreme. So I don't even want a prosecutor to be able to mention I was using handloads and paint a picture of a "gun nut" in court. The weapon and ammo someone else uses is their choice and I won't argue the point. However, I'm sticking with factory ammo in a major caliber and that's one less thing I have to worry about if I ever have to use it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  6. axxe55

    axxe55 Well-Known Member

    1,241
    0
    Hyphen i agree with your opinion to a degree and understand your thinking. in a liberal state, where if you were to use deadly force in defence of yourself in the home, you might need to use any advantage you could find to defend your use of lethal force. this is sad and almost seems the liberals and the criminals get to dictate the rules that someone has to play by in order to defend themselves. if a shooting is justified, that should be the only fact that is relevent, not the ammo i used or the firearm i used as long as they are legal to own. to bring into question the firearm or ammo used, just seems to me a way to excuse the actions of the criminal and lay the blame on the gun owner for defending themselves.

    Hyphen, your points are valid and make sense. hopefully in time we the gun and home owners will not have to be judged but for whether the shooting was justified or not and that is the only fact that needs to be relevent.
     
  7. Hyphenated

    Hyphenated Well-Known Member

    854
    0
    What you use to stop an intruder in your home or an assault on the street should never be the issue. However, we live in a world where there is an ambulance chasing lawyer on every corner waiting to make a name for himself. You can take this next statement to the bank. Every self-defense shooting, whether it results in a death or not, will have two trials.

    When the Police/State are done with you the family will certainly bring round two in the form of a civil trial. Sometimes it will be worse than the first trial. Keep in mind the rules and standards in civil court are more lax than State or Federal.

    I don't agree with all the things that happen in our court system, but everyone who has a gun in their home for self-defense or carries one should educate themselves to minimize their exposure if their day in court ever comes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012