|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 27, 2015, 02:35 PM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 27, 2015, 03:05 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
Theohazard,
Yeah, I hadn't seen their posts yet. I stand by my statements, though. In Arizona and other Castle Doctrine states, people just don't often go to trial in home defense cases. Could a scary gun influence a jury? Sure. But to get to trial in the first place, one needs to be involved in a questionable use of force in some states. In other states, even obvious defense shootings go to trial. There are obviously rational arguments on both sides of this, and your decision will likely be influenced by your location. I don't consider the added risk of driving a red car to be enough to convince me to get a color I don't like (I actually prefer gray) nor am I convinced that the small risk of a negative perception to a jury that I'll probably never see justifies the use of a less effective defense tool. |
March 27, 2015, 03:32 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
2nd quoted paragraph - how in the world can you guarantee that a shoot won't be questionable? We have cases where the defendant claims that he or she thought the action was reasonable but then they went to court. When they go to court, the case is definitionally questionable. Then the jury factors (see referenced book) click into the decision process. Telling a jury that the prosecution is trying to manipulate them but you are not. See a problem with this. Do you have any idea of what juries take away from lawyer's statements and judges' instructions? You would be horrified. To our humble readers - please take advantage of numerous professional resources on jury decisions and self-defense law. It may be reasonable to use X, Y and Z but you need a lawyer who understands the processes Frank, Spats and I discuss. A throwout argument like in the OP is not a sure fire fix to your problem. Check out the Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network for instance. http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
March 27, 2015, 03:56 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
Glenn, remember the context is home defense, not armed personal defense in public. There are certainly some jurisdictions where a person is very likely to see a trial if they offer any resistance whatsoever to a crime, even in their home. Most home defense shootings in the free parts of the country never even make it to trial. The ones that do usually involve actual wrongdoing or grievous mistakes at the very least.
You're right that the aspartame of a fun can influence a jury but a competent attorney can address those concerns. If you find yourself at trial, though, you are likely to be more concerned about the facts that put you in that court room to begin with. Use a legal weapon and act in a legal manner. Don't ever talk to cops. Train to survive, no matter what to you choose. |
March 27, 2015, 06:39 PM | #55 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
The scary gun itself will not land you in jail. After a shooting, you may come into contact with POs, prosecutors and assistant prosecutors, a judge and jurors. The perceptions and judgments of each of them may influence your fate. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
March 27, 2015, 07:08 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
Maybe we're splitting hairs, then.
Everyone has to assess risk for themselves. In my own assessment, the perception of the tool is at pretty much the bottom of the list. I wouldn't use an illegal weapon unless I lived in a place where I simply did not have legal access to an effective weapon. I also wouldn't use something in a legal gray area like a pistol with a Sig brace. Otherwise, my first concern is to choose the most effective tool for the job and train to the extent of my ability. My second concern is to act within the limits of the law. |
March 27, 2015, 07:18 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2014
Posts: 203
|
One argument for suppressor is hearing damage based on low med high. Has there been any objective assessment done? Ive fired my m16 with no earplugs and still have good hearing...minus the tinnitus at times. Just wondering what the actual decibel of 9mm or 5.56 going off in a home is and if it is highly likely to caude oermanent hearing damage.
My ear testing facility also told me that if you get to them jn 72 hours they can mostly reverse it. Id just like to see some objective standarda and results on hearing put forth by the OP |
March 27, 2015, 07:23 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
Wow. I'd never heard that hearing damage could be reversed.
Regardless of the permanent damage, discharging a firearm in a confined space can have a severe temporary impact on your hearing, making it difficult to communicate with your family, 911, and police. |
March 27, 2015, 07:43 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
pax |
|
March 27, 2015, 08:09 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
So affording to that Ayoob quote, it is extremely unlikely that you will be convicted if you act lawfully, even if you use a machine gun. So the argument comes down to how much money you are willing to spend to defend your family.
|
March 27, 2015, 08:35 PM | #61 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that you simply don't have the professional qualifications to responsibly opine on such matters, and the issues are more complex than you guess. There may indeed be practical reasons to use of a suppressor on a home defense gun, for example. But you don't understand the legal issues, nor do you have the education, training, and professional experience to actually have the "clue" as to such matters which you, yourself, have told us in necessary to make an opinion on such things meaningful.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||||
March 27, 2015, 08:54 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 516
|
Quote:
I honestly didn't expect that you would take my post about not talking to police so literally, nor did I expect that you would consider a blog post by a lay person to be legal advice. I never claimed to be an expert and I thought that the line about opinions should be a clue that the article is worth every cent you paid for it. Let's see what another attorney and a police officer has to say about taking to police: https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc |
|
March 27, 2015, 09:25 PM | #63 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
Quote:
A light trigger, or firing a large number of shots(as might happen with a full auto firearm)--particularly if there's any way to make one or more of the shots look accidental--will make a very attractive set of circumstances for a civil case against a homeowner. If there is any way to convince a jury that the injury/death was accidental, then the homeowner's insurance becomes liable and that can create the potential for a very large payout. Quote:
1. The fact that the current audience can't come up with a concrete citation of an incident doesn't mean it has never happened. It just means that the current audience can't come up with a concrete citation of such an incident. 2. The fact that concrete citations of a certain type of event are hard to come by doesn't mean that a particular incident is impossible. It might mean that it is improbable but that's not the same thing. 3. The fact that something is improbable doesn't mean that it's unlikely to happen GIVEN THE PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES; it might just mean that the proper circumstances occur rarely. For example, it's rare to be struck by lightning, but if you stand on a high hill with no trees on it while holding a long iron pole in a thunderstorm THEN it becomes pretty likely you'll get struck. Why don't we see lots and lots of stories about people getting struck by lightning while standing on hills in thunderstorms and holding long iron poles? Because people very, VERY, rarely do such things. 4. The fact that something happens rarely doesn't mean that this is proof that setting up the circumstances under which it might reasonably be expected to occur is a good idea. For example, let's say that a 65 year old female rocket scientist were to publicly express a desire to go nude bungee jumping using old and frayed bungee ropes. She would likely be assailed by advice claiming that such an escapade would be a bad idea. Using your logic, she could justify her actions by requiring someone to cite a case where an elderly female rocket scientist has ever been injured while bungee jumping in the nude. Of course, such a cite would be extremely difficult to find because ANY incidents involving elderly female rocket scientists engaging in nude bungee jumping with old bungee ropes are extremely rare--perhaps non-existent. Clearly the rarity of such an event (and therefore the difficulty in finding a citation) doesn't make engaging in the activity a good idea. In fact, its rather obvious inadvisability may be one reason it's so rare. In similar fashion, the use of NFA items in self-defense cases is quite rare and therefore ANY cases (let alone cases involving convictions) are hard to find. As far as I know, there are only two publicized cases. The rarity (or perhaps absence) of convictions where NFA items were used in self-defense doesn't make using NFA items for self-defense a good idea any more than the rarity (or absence) of incidents involving elderly female rocket scientists who nude bungee jump with worn ropes makes engaging in such activity advisable. It's also worth pointing out that searching for self-defense convictions involving NFA weapons isn't likely to produce many results. People aren't convicted of "self-defense". They are convicted of murder or assault with a deadly weapon. So there aren't any "self-defense cases" involving NFA weapons where the defendant was convicted. If the defendant was convicted then the case is a murder case or at least an assault with a deadly weapon case even if the defendant tried to claim self-defense. Quote:
The claim implies that unless something has happened before, an assertion that it could happen in the future must be false. Since everything that happens must have once happened for the first time--it must have once happened at a time when it had never happened before--the claim can not possibly be true. Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...MC3102156/#R92 "Combined treatment with a steroid (prednisolone) and the nootropic drug piracetam also appeared to rescue subjects from noise damage by gunshots"Psillas G, Pavlidis P, Karvelis I, et al. Potential efficacy of early treatment of acute acoustic trauma with steroids and piracetam after gunshot noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;265:1465–1469. [PubMed]
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
March 27, 2015, 09:48 PM | #64 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
We're running in circles here. There don't appear to be any citable cases that directly address this, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility. Credible and experienced attorneys have demonstrated potential risk.
Should we ever get a test case, we can revisit the issue. In the meantime, this one has run its course.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
March 27, 2015, 10:54 PM | #65 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I'm going to jump in here to make a couple of comments to rebut some questionable statements by the OP in post 62. If the Andrew Wiggin wishes to answer my comments, he can PM me, and I'll re-open the thread for him.
Quote:
That's a pretty clear and direct statement without any room for interpretation. Is there some reason we weren't supposed to believe that's what you intended to say? What else have you written that we're not supposed to take literally? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
March 28, 2015, 12:02 AM | #66 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I've heard from the OP, and he is content for the thread to stay closed. And so it shall.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|