[OldMarksman]

Posted by Bartholomew Roberts: Looking at just the rough numbers from the archive links, reloads are used in self-defense shootings very rarely to begin with. And once that rare event happens, you must also have a case where that shooter is prosecuted and where the distance the shooting took place is in dispute and forensic evidence is the best answer available.

That explains very well why one does not hear about evidentiary problems in actual self defense cases involving reloads. It also explains very well why the absence of such cases does not really tell us anything at all pertinent to the attendant risks.

I think where this debate diverges a lot of times is that one side focuses on the big consequences of "What happens if all three do line up?" and weighs that against the benefits of reloaded ammo, while the other side focuses on the "What are the chances all three will line up?" (Although in my mind that second part brings up a whole new discussion about conditional risk).

Exactly. Now, let's look at the issue of conditional probability for a moment:

1. A small percentage of people handload their handgun ammuntion.
2. The number of defensive gun uses in which a firearm is actually fired each year is very small indeed.
3. The number of shootings claimed to constitute self defense that occur outside the home, where justication is generlally rather straight forward, is still smaller.
4. The number of shootings that occur outside the home, that involve self defense claims, that involve contractory testimony and/or a paucity of evidence supporting a defense of justification, and for which the charging decision is unfavorable to the actor is even smaller.
5. Of those, the number in which evidence that indicates he distance at which the shooting occurred is critical to the actor's defense is smaller yet.

Because the number of claimed defensive shooting incidents involving handloads, an unclear set of testilmony and other evidence, and the need for the defense to rely upon evidence regarding the distance involved all at the same time is very small, there are very, very few cases to substantiate what must therefore be substantiated in some other way. I know of one, offhand. In that case, the admittance of GSR test data from factory loads resulted in an acquittal. It is crystal clear that, had the shooter used handloads for which the test data would not have met the standards for admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence, the outcome could well have been different.

Regarding the risks: when one steps outside with a loaded firearm on any given day, the likelihood that he or she will have to fire it is extremely low indeed. However, that fact really should not influence how one should address the management of the risks that might occur should that gun have to be used. That brings into play the subject of conditional risk.

Look at it this way: should one ever have to fire a gun defensively in the out of doors in the absence of evidence of an unlawful forced entry, should the testimony and evidence be contradictory, and should evidence supporting the actor's account of the distance of the shooting become critical, the admissibility of GSR test data could become crucial, and the probability that the entire case could easily hinge upon whether or not factory ammunition had been used would be extremely high.

Spats McGee put it this way:

If you look at the number of DGUs vs. the number in which reloads actually become an issue, the odds of handloads coming up in one particular case is fairly low, no question. If it does become an issue, however, the risk and the cost associated therewith is very, very high, particularly in light of the very low cost of eliminating the risk (that handloads will become an issue at trial) altogether.

The two things to remember are these:

• GSR evidence is routinely gathered, analyzed, and used in the analysis and prosecution of shooting incidents; and
• Unless factory ammuntion had been used, GSR test data involving the kind of ammuniion used will not meet the standards for admissibility under the rules in effect at this time.

Those simple facts nail it for me.

Just to make one other thing clear, it really doesn't matter whether a shooting case involves a claim of self defense or not, or whether it involves an accident or negligence or not, or whether it involves a criminal question or civil liability, the same principles and the same facts are relevant. The fact that the Bias case did not involve a case of self defense is completely beside the point.