Reloading for Self Defense- Opinions

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Welcome! You have been invited by jmul1212 to join our community. Please click here to register.
Mauser98 said:
10mm was brought up in the Harold Fish case but that was a really bad shoot. His story made no sense. He was afraid that the dogs were attacking him so he shot the dogs' owner, who had no weapons and had not tried to attack him at all.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw for someone that wasn't there, but regardless, he's a free man and the law has been changed. The role the 10mm played in that case gets completely overblown by those who try to use it to make the argument that reloads will get you convicted in any shooting.
 
TheAccountant said:
Mauser98 said:
10mm was brought up in the Harold Fish case but that was a really bad shoot. His story made no sense. He was afraid that the dogs were attacking him so he shot the dogs' owner, who had no weapons and had not tried to attack him at all.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw for someone that wasn't there, but regardless, he's a free man and the law has been changed. The role the 10mm played in that case gets completely overblown by those who try to use it to make the argument that reloads will get you convicted in any shooting.

No, I was there.


Just kidding, I wasn't. :mrgreen:
 
I think the point others are making is that if a prosecutor is willing to bring up caliber to try and convict you, he'd probably have no problem bringing up reloads either. Neither is against the law but since when did that matter to a Politically ambitious lawyer?
 
I get that, my point is there are a million other things that could be thrown in that same basket (mag size, extra mags, hollow points, etc) and used against you if you follow that same logic. I would love for someone to find an actual case where the fact that someone used hand loads was a deciding factor in the case (again, deciding factor, not just a fact of the case). All I've ever seen is pure speculation, and the speculation never goes as far as to explain what part of the law would allow for someone to be shot with factory ammunition but not hand loaded ammunition. The argument always relies on some evil prosecutor, but in that case I think the speculators are ignoring the fact that you were guilty in their eyes simply because you had a firearm.
 
I think the point is, as has been stated thousands of times,... when split seconds count,... second thoughts, politically correct thoughts, legality thoughts, etc. etc.... will, one, or, all, probably get you DEAD!!!

Bottom line,... when your life is in danger,... shoot'em where they stand, sit, fall, crawl, or run,... whether the threat is in front of a barrier, on the side, on top, or behind!

If a threat to your life is move'n,...keep shoot'n,.... til it ain't!

All that matters in a defensive shoot, is that the threat goes down before you do,... screw all the legal mumbo-jumbo!

That's my story, and I'm stick'n to it!

:whistle:
 
I think a lot of this crap is pushed by that Massod Ayoob booob. Took a class by him many years ago and he was preaching this factory ammo all stock guns agenda. One of the classes I learned the least from.
 
I think a lot of this crap is the product of mealy mouthed, limp wrist f***-tards worried more about what Big Brother Government power/control seeking idiots will do to them if they misbehave and save their own ass, with their own power/abilities,... rather than worry about a threat standing in front of them with a weapon.
 
Well I am now firmly in the camp of do "what is legal but dont worry about what would be under the microscope". Im reloading my own SD rounds. IF the rare scenario of having to use my firearm arises, there will be far too many things to worry about. Really its just unfortunate that so much misinformation is being thrown around and confusing everyone one of us as a community.
 
Boriqua said:
Not to make the thread all about Fish but .. I wonder why his attorney never brought up he was on a rather lonely hike in the woods and the 10mm just happens to be a great anti animal gun and that might be why he chose it that day.

Fish had one huge issue that overwhelmed everything else. He refused to hire an attorney experienced in firearms and self defense law. His attorney was in way, way over his head.

And yes, the prosecutor did make a huge deal over the Kimber 10mm Fish used.

The other problem he had, was he admitted firing "Warning Shots" at the dogs, but then had to shoot the person who attacked him. You and I, or anyone who actually understands the nuances of the law, might understand that a situation can go from non-life-threatening to life-threatening in the blink of an eye, but the Jury had a hard time reconciling warning shots against dogs and center mass shot to the human.
 
It was pointed out in a CCW class in Nevada that a prosecuting attorney will paint the shooter as someone who "sits around making bullets at night".
 
kidkaiser said:
It was pointed out in a CCW class in Nevada that a prosecuting attorney will paint the shooter as someone who "sits around making bullets at night".



Hmmm,... sounds like another one of those, shit for brains, CCW class instructors,... seems like there are more, and more, every year!
 
shooter444 said:
kidkaiser said:
It was pointed out in a CCW class in Nevada that a prosecuting attorney will paint the shooter as someone who "sits around making bullets at night".



Hmmm,... sounds like another one of those, s*** for brains, CCW class instructors,... seems like there are more, and more, every year!

I think that a large part of the problem is that some of the Instructor certifications are nothing more than attendance certificates. Look around and you can see ads for them here and there.

Essentially they're a two day course and as long as you don't die during the class, you become an instant Instructor. I used to shoot with one of them and told him what I thought of his certification a few times.
 
I was on a jury for a murder trial. It was actually a retrial based on the judge not giving the jury enough options in the original trial.

The gun and ammo had been examined and an expert testified that the gun was not modified and the ammo was factory production.

I can see a prosecutor jumping on any modifications to a gun and I can see them doing it if you have handloads. I wouldn't carry handloads for self defense and after the Fish trial I think I wouldn't carry handloads hiking even if I thought I might shoot some small game for dinner.

On the Fish trial the prosecutor was going to run for County Atty (I think) and really went after Fish both in the court and in the court of public opinion. A lot of info was initially biased (what's new?) against Fish. They left out that one of the dogs had been categorized as vicious and should have been put down, not allowed to be taken out and allows to wander without a leash. The guy that took the dogs out was not the most stable person either even though he was described only as an animal lover and volunteer. So if a prosecutor is out to get you, and they will be, don't give them any help. His gun was characterized as overly powerful in court and I don't believe his original lawyer pointed out it was FBI issue for female agents.
 
Last I heard, this is still the Untied States of America. And, unless there is a law regulating this subject,... as a sovereign human being, living in a sovereign state, of a sovereign country, I'll do as I wish!

I only carry/shoot my reloads,... have for twenty years, or so,... and God willing,... for another twenty years,... or so.
 
shooter444 said:
Last I heard, this is still the Untied States of America. And, unless there is a law regulating this subject,... as a sovereign human being, living in a sovereign state, of a sovereign country, I'll do as I wish!

I only carry/shoot my reloads,... have for twenty years, or so,... and God willing,... for another twenty years,... or so.

Only 20 years? You're a newcomer. :D
 
Back
Top