Quote of the day, and some thoughts

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
Jeff Cooper

So, as I mentioned a while ago, while I try to avoid talking about guns at work, when the topic comes up I don't shy away from participating. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I think I am often the voice of reason in a conversation that can easily get out of hand for an onlooker (onhearer?) who knows little about the subject, and may find it off-putting.

You know, someone mentions how they had a chance to shoot a Barret Big 50, and the gun nuts in the room are all excited, but the non-shooters are turned off. You need to be able to explain "Yes, it's a very large firearm, and yes, it is used by the military as a sniper rifle, but they were originally used by people who wanted to be able to do target shooting at extremely long range. Even with a very powerful and potentially highly accurate rifle like that, being able to shoot it accurately at ranges of half a mile or more is takes a very specialized skill set, and, frankly, it can be great fun."

So anyway, the topic of reloading for self-defense came up, and someone uttered the old chestnut about how you should never use reloads for self-defense, because you'll get flayed alive in court.

At that point, I jumped in and pointed out that I have been hearing that for years, and I have never, despite asking for it, heard of one single court case, criminal or civil, that even included the "reloading factor", let alone that hinged on it. Besides, with modern ammunition technology, there is no reason to reload for self-defense, especially as using reloads will void the warranty in most firearms manufacturers' products. Reloading is primarily a means to save money on practice ammunition.

"Well, what about if you use those evil, more-lethal hollow points?"

"Then you say

I select self-defense rounds based on their effectiveness for that role; hollow point, or expanding bullets in general, are actually safer to use, as they will not over penetrate the target and pose a threat to the safety of any innocent bystanders.

and if your lawyer tried to tell you not to say that, fire his ass and get a new one. Your lawyer is supposed to be representing you, you should discuss all this--why you were in the right, and your selection of arms and ammunition--with him or her. "

I will say that I have heard "through the grapevine" of one case in which an IPSC competitive shooter used his "moon gun"--scoped, counter-weighted, all the bells and whistles--to "repel boarders" and was sued in a civil case for shooting a home invader; the issue was not so much the ammo used as the gun. But I have not been able to find anyone else who had heard of the case, despite asking of other competitive shooters from the area where it supposedly took place, so I offer it as no more than a hearsay example of a shooter with poor legal advice.

Anyone who can cite actual court cases in which a shooter was convicted, or successfully sued, on the basis of the ammunition or firearm used in self-defense, please post case names or numbers in the comments section, preferably with a link.