Thought on using a suppressed pistol for HD

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo. Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD? Not me. But then I also use my own reloads, in a gun that had a trigger job done.

Suppressors work very well, with sub or supersonic ammo. Subsonic is a little quieter, but its generally not that dramatic a difference.

With something like 147 grain 9mm or 45acp, which are already subsonic for the most part, youre not giving up anything just because they are subsonic.

That suppressor makes a major difference in sound and flash suppression, especially in enclosed places and in low light. Even if you were using a full power round that was supersonic, youre still way ahead with the suppressor on there.

[Nanuk]

the prosecutor would have a field day, especially if that suppressor were attached to an AR.

Prosecuting what violation of law?

Then there is the civil suite.

What civil suit? For using a can? What law is that?

What state? Since many states have qualified immunity for SD shootings. What relevance does using a can have?

An AR, suppressed or not, is not suitable for HD in most places. Far too much penetration.

That Sir is an uneducated and wrong statement.

He'll probably fail, but you'll still have an attorney bill to pay.

Depends on the state, know the law where you are.

So much of this fear comes from Massad Ayoob's 30 year old advice about the use of reloads for SD/HD. 3 decades later his predictions still have not come true. Since then folks have advised against trigger jobs, custom guns and the taking of SD/HD classes, etc., as possible risks for increasing the chances of being found guilty of murder instead of legal SD. Most states have a legal description of what makes for a home invasion and gives what recourse is legal. Stay within those boundaries and you will be just fine......suppressor or not.

Amen.

That's because the new law required the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt in a self defense situation

Actually self defense is an affirmative defense. You must admit to killing the BG in order to claim it was self defense.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

Actually, his expert testimony thing is limited to only a few number of civilian cases

How many cases have you offered expert testimony in on any subject?

Again....not really. When used for the argument against having a custom trigger for SD it has to do with intent. Kinda like the "Punisher" and the "Kill 'em all" stickers you refer to later.

I wasn’t attempting to describe a complete example of every legal argument that might be made with regard to a custom trigger. Also, from a business standpoint, the point of civil litigation is to get paid. Arguing the homeowner intentionally shot your client is going to mean you let the insurance company off the hook and they have deeper pockets than the homeowner as well as being more likely to settle.

If your client was intentionally shot by the homeowner in the process of breaking into the home, you’re going to have to show some act of surrender or retreat on your client’s part before you even bet to argue the homeowner was bloodthirsty. And even if you collect, you get what’s left after the homeowner has paid his attorneys - and only the property that’s not subject to exceptions (houses, cars, even guns in Texas...)

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo. Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD?

Subsonic .45 and 9mm JHP ammo is fairly common even among people who don’t own suppressors and it performs well. I’m not sure what you mean by “works well” but even in rifle calibers, supersonic is going to be noticeably quieter with a suppressor (about 30db).

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Actually self defense is an affirmative defense. You must admit to killing the BG in order to claim it was self defense.

I was referring to who must bear the burden of proof in a self defense situation, which, under this new law, switched from the defendant having to prove they acted in self defense to the prosecutor who must prove they didn't.

[dogtown tom]

buck460XVR

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo.

I would argue that silencers work well with ANY ammo. While silencers are quietest with subsonic ammunition, you shouldn't discount what effect they have on standard velocity ammunition.

My 11.5" 5.56 AR has an obnoxious blast outdoors. With a silencer its quieter than an unsuppressed .22 pistol. I wouldn't hesitate to use it indoors if needed. You just need to know what to expect in terms of sound reduction.

Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD?

Sure they do......good ole Winchester/Remington/Federal .45acp 230gr ball ammo from WalMart IS subsonic)

[44 AMP]

I was referring to who must bear the burden of proof in a self defense situation, which, under this new law, switched from the defendant having to prove they acted in self defense to the prosecutor who must prove they didn't.

This is probably a good thing, but its doesn't change the fact that to claim self defense, you have to admit to intentionally shooting the bad guy.

It is a nuance of our legal system but a private citizen shooting anyone is almost always "a crime" of some level. An accidental shooting is a crime of negligence. Intentional shooting in self defense is also a crime, BUT maybe (and hopefully is) found justified. But in order for such a finding, you have to admit to committing the "crime".

[FishinLuke]

Originally Posted by Theohazard

Wow. How many times over the years have you regurgitated this nonsense? And how many times have we told you this is nonsense? Not only are you a treasure trove of bad information, but you repeat that bad information ad nauseum no matter how many times you’ve been corrected here. Good grief...

My thoughts exactly, I've seen this response from him time and time again with repudiation and it still comes up in conversation again when the situation arises.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by AK103K

Suppressors work very well, with sub or supersonic ammo. Subsonic is a little quieter, but its generally not that dramatic a difference.

FME, and in MHO, suppressors work best with subsonic ammo because they do nothing to suppress the sound when a supersonic bullet leaves the barrel and creates its sonic boom. I didn't say they don't work with supersonic loads, just that IMHO, they don't work the best. But that has nuttin' to do with the question in the OP.....'' - would it have an impact in civil proceedings?''.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

FME, and in MHO, suppressors work best with subsonic ammo because they do nothing to suppress the sound when a supersonic bullet leaves the barrel and creates its sonic boom. I didn't say they don't work with supersonic loads, just that IMHO, they don't work the best. But that has nuttin' to do with the question in the OP.....'' - would it have an impact in civil proceedings?''.

Contrary to what you keeps saying they DO suppress the muzzle blast, which is the bulk of the noise.

Yes, supersonic rounds do have a crack as the round goes downrange, and that can vary with distance, but thats not near as noticeable as the muzzle blast.

Case in point, I can shoot one of my suppressed 10.5" AR's from inside my carport, "without" earplugs, and I can still hear the round hit what Im shooting at before I notice the "crack" of the supersonic 5.56. I cant shoot an unsuppressed .22LR from the same spot without losing hearing for a couple of days. If I were to do that with the AR without the suppressor, I would likely lose what little hearing I have left.

AAC claims 95-97% in muzzle blast with the AAC M4-2000, and I believe them too.

Same goes for my 9mm's from a handgun. No muzzle blast, and a slight bit of difference in sound between the sub and supersonic rounds.

The big reduction is in the muzzle blast.

I only keep bringing it up too, because you keep making statements that arent actually true and correct.

Yes, they do work best with subsonic ammo. But they still reduce the "muzzle blast" from the supersonic rounds, to about the same levels.


Will it have an effect in court? Whos to say? Im still of the thinking,"why even bring it up?", but I seem to be in the minority.

[JohnKSa]

Im still of the thinking,"why even bring it up?", but I seem to be in the minority.

If it is going to be brought up, it won't be your decision.

If you are still suggesting that someone intentionally alter the scene of a crime, that is a non-starter, if for no other reason that it is against the TFL rules to suggest that people should engage in criminal behavior.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

This is probably a good thing, but its doesn't change the fact that to claim self defense, you have to admit to intentionally shooting the bad guy.

I don't see an issue with admitting to shooting the bad guy in self defense if the prosecution has to prove you committed a crime

[Double Naught Spy]

That's the rub. They don't have to prove it. The just have to convince a few people on the jury pool. That isn't the same as proving it.

The Innocence Project gets people out of wrongful convictions each year. https://www.innocenceproject.org/justice-2018/

And, it is believed that 5% of folks convinced are wrongfully convicted.

So when you speak of proving a crime was committed, it isn't like clear cut math. Sometimes 2+3=7 in court.

[44 AMP]

I think it was Twain who said something like "a trial is where a jury decides which side has the better liar"...

The big problem is not what violation of law using a suppressor in self defense might be, I doubt there is any law saying you can't use one, the problem is in the appearance of premeditation.

Generally speaking, if the prosecution can spin a fanciful tale about how you planned to shoot someone (or could have planned it) it can go a long way to negating the claim of justifiable self defense.

IF they can convince a juror(s) that you were "lying in wait" and hoping for just such an opportunity, you could be convicted and/or found liable even when the actual facts are different.

If there is a trial, you will face a jury of your peers, but always remember that they are only your peers in the sense that you all live in the same area.

It's unlikely that anyone who admits to any knowledge of firearms, or the law, will be allowed on the jury to begin with. Both sides want jurors who will only know what they tell them in court.

Using a suppressed firearm for self defense breaks no law I know of, because it is suppressed, but the impression it can have on the undereducated might be enough to send you to jail, or render you liable for a huge civil judgement, the way having "Kill them all, let God sort then out" engraved on your pistol could.

It doesn't matter to the facts of the case, or the law, but you face more than just those things when you are in court.

As a deliberate choice, using a suppressed firearm for self defense is a poor choice. Not because of the law, but because of what some people are going to think.

[Sharkbite]

the problem is in the appearance of premeditation.

Simply having a loaded gun avail for HD use could give the same impression.

[JohnKSa]

Yes and no.

Having a loaded gun for self-defense is pretty mainstream. Most people "get it" and understand why the gun is there and why it is loaded.

Having a suppressed gun for self-defense is not mainstream. I mentioned the stats earlier and it's pretty obvious that even amongst gun owners, suppressors are not at all common. People using them for self-defense is even less common. So the average person isn't going to "get it" in the same way they immediately understand why people keep loaded guns for self-defense.

The idea that suppressors are used to conceal the noise of the shot so as to not attract attention is pretty heavily ingrained in the average person's mind by the way silencers are portrayed in the media. The idea that they're merely an alternate approach to hearing protection is going to be a new concept for the vast majority of people.

In my opinion, the first thing the average person will think when they hear someone shot someone else using a silencer is that the shooter was trying to keep anyone from hearing the shot and that sort of predisposes them to thinking that the shooting could have been premeditated. Can you change their minds? Probably, but that will cost money.

[FITASC]

I keep a suppressed AR for HD.

And thats what QD mounts are for. It doesnt have to be on there when anyone gets there.

Simple is best and this is simply the best way to handle it.

[shurshot]

Between the potential damage to my already deafened eardrums, and the nightmare potential criminal / civil litigation some of you have outlined, I think my new home defense weapon will be my razor sharp WW2 vintage Samurai sword.

[JohnKSa]

Quote:

Simple is best and this is simply the best way to handle it.

As already explained in the thread, intentionally altering the scene of a crime is illegal. TFL members agree not to advocate illegal activity when they register.

This is now the third time this has been discussed in this thread and that's really more than sufficient reminder of the rules. No more reminders.

...I think my new home defense weapon will be my razor sharp WW2 vintage Samurai sword.

If you know how to use one and can keep the range tight, that's really not a bad idea.

In close quarters, I think I would be more concerned about someone armed with a sword than with a pistol. Once the range opens a bit, of course, things change.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you know how to use one and can keep the range tight, that's really not a bad idea.

In close quarters, I think I would be more concerned about someone armed with a sword than with a pistol. Once the range opens a bit, of course, things change.

And here I thought all the worry about the image of someone here with a suppressor on their gun was going to play out poorly in court and be an issue?

Now we're onto "Ninjas".

I had a little "Kendo" experience in the past. You bring your sword, Ill show you how a gun works.

[JohnKSa]

Presumably you would use a sword because it's what you had to hand. I imagine if it ever came under scrutiny and it turned out that you had chosen a sword when you could have picked a gun, that might raise some eyebrows...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As already explained in the thread, intentionally altering the scene of a crime is illegal. TFL members agree not to advocate illegal activity when they register.

While I’m not entirely a fan of that rule, I think it is worth noting that it is for the benefit of the person violating the rule. JohnKSa makes it sound all strict and parental ; but everything you write here is quite traceable to you and will be used against you.

[44 AMP]

Now we're onto "Ninjas".

They'd certainly try to play on that, if you used a real samurai sword and were youngish and somewhere close to physically fit.

Now what if you're 60+, with a medical condition, but still able to give someone a good swat or a sharp poke with an unsharpened decorator sword??

and you have several within easy reach? I'd not choose Sting or an Abingdon Viking sword against a gun, but 3feet of 3 inch wide flat steel bar with a point on the end is nothing to sneer at, within its range, I think. Overpenetration isn't a issue, either!

Remember the point of legal self defense is to STOP the attack. And here's something to consider along those lines, the "psychological stop". This covers everything that causes the bad guy to stop the attack that doesn't physically incapacitate them.

Unlike most animals, people know what gunshots are and possibly the muzzle blast could have a deterrent effect. I recently read someone's opinion that possibly part of the reason the 125gr .357 Magnum jhp got such an impressive one shot stop record was not just due to the bullet performance but also due to the huge, stunning muzzle blast acting on an attacker below the conscious level.

I won't say its true, and I can't say its not, but there's been talk!

If you use anything well outside the "normal" for self defense, expect the prosecution to try to make you into a blood thirsty monster over it. They will use any trick they can think of.

Also remember that those people on the stand, giving testimony are sworn to tell the truth. The Prosecutor, is not.
Neither is your lawyer, either,

[shurshot]

Relax guys, I was only joking about the sword. No one is advocating Ninja / Samurai tactics and weapons.

[Nanuk]

I was referring to who must bear the burden of proof in a self defense situation, which, under this new law, switched from the defendant having to prove they acted in self defense to the prosecutor who must prove they didn't.

Yes sir. That is called an "affirmative defense". It is home defense, unless you live in a state where you must flee your own home, how is a legally owned suppressor different than say a legally owned axe when used to defend yourself?

[Nanuk]

Presumably you would use a sword because it's what you had to hand. I imagine if it ever came under scrutiny and it turned out that you had chosen a sword when you could have picked a gun, that might raise some eyebrows...

Yes, but is it illegal?