Actually, the point I'm pushing is Ayoob's citations, and very little else.
And I'm in a win-win position on that point.
If I'm wrong about what I tracked down (probable, at this point) this entire conversation is going to show that it's always better to answer a request for citations as promptly and completely as you're able.
Regardless of who the request comes from. Regardless of who you are. Regardless of who people say you are. Regardless of who you think you are.
If Ayoob's citations are accurate, as soon as I read them properly and I'm able to track them down, I'm sure that fact alone will make this point, that answering a request from an insignificant net-ninja in an insignificant thread on an insignificant forum on the internet can have great effect.
I'm planning a trip to the U.W. Law Library. (Courtesy of the Bill Gates Foundation. Very shiny new building.) I'll try to find all of the references Ayoob made. My plan is to find a librarian, wave my list of references over my head, fall to my knees and start begging. That method has brought me great success in the past.
What I want is to read, what all of us want who have been requesting citations, is to read the documents themselves, and decide, for ourselves, whether carrying reloads for self defense is a good idea.
And to get back on point, carrying reloads is too important an issue to do anything but follow the leads as far as they will go, read the transcripts, think it over and then decide.
Apparently, my research is not finished-- I haven't been able to read any documentation on a case in which reloaded ammunition was an issue in court in a self defense shooting.
Therefore, my conclusion has been un-made.
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998