Altering firearms

[JohnKSa]

Your 'reformatting' of what I stated above changes neither the meaning or the truth of it.

You said: "Self-defense doesn't result in a charge, or a 'trial'." I quoted it verbatim. How does that qualify as 'reformatting'?

Self-defense does sometimes result in charges and trials. I gave one example, there are many others.

What is ridiculous, however, is insinuating that anyone who acts in self defense is likely to have to claim self-defense 'at trial'; as if criminal charges are sure to follow.

No one has insinuated anything of the sort. The point isn't that every self-defense situation will result in criminal charges nor even that criminal charges are likely.

The point is that:

1. It is impossible to know ahead of time whether or not the situation you may end up involved in will result in criminal charges. It probably won't but it could. It is not likely but it does happen.

2. You can't prepare in retrospect. Once you're charged you can't go back and unmodify your gun to make it more acceptable to the jury.

3. If your self-defense situation results in charges and you have operated under the assumption that you would never be charged the consequences could be decidedly negative.

4. If one prepares based on the assumption that his particular situation (when/if it happens) could result in criminal charges and charges are not filed then there's essentially no negative impact incurred by taking the precautions recommended.

 

[maestro pistolero]

4. If one prepares based on the assumption that his particular situation (when/if it happens) could result in criminal charges and charges are not filed then there's essentially no negative impact incurred by taking the precautions recommended.

And for me, those precautions mean having a firearm with the least likelihood of cause a round to hit an unintended target. Thus I choose a proper 'carry trigger'. Not incurring criminal or civil liability begins with not injuring an innocent person in the first place.

That is not to say that one is unnecessarily risking harm to innocent life with a stock trigger, if that's your comfort level. I prefer a little more precision for safety.

I would like to see the court docs or at least a synopsis of The People vs Grey from post #29. There is no detail, therefore it hardly proves any point being made here. This 1994 case resulted in a 2nd degree murder conviction, but why, what were the circumstances and other evidence? There is no way to weigh the incriminating role of a trigger modification in the absence of any of that information.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And for me, those precautions mean having a firearm with the least likelihood of cause a round to hit an unintended target....

And that's more a software than a hardware issue. As Massad Ayoob teaches, the priorities are: (1) mental awareness and preparedness; (2) tactics and proper use; (3) skill with safety equipment; and (4) optimum choice of safety equipment. Or as it's sometimes stated: mindset; skill set; and tool set.

 

[maestro pistolero]

And that's more a software than a hardware issue.

Of course it is.

 

[OldMarksman]

But I am simply not going to worry about something which has never happened, ...

Not to be argumentative, but I've heard that sentiment before, more than once, though not in the context of anything related to violence. More than once the results were very unpleasant indeed if not disastrous. The phrase used varied somewhat from time to time, but it came to be known among us as "famous last words."

It must be pointed out that no one can know for sure that something "has never happened". Search engines are amazing things, but they will not find for you the notes taken during investigations or during plea bargaining negotiations, or transcripts of jury deliberations. Unless something has gone to an appellate court, the details are going to be very hard to find, and unless someone chooses to write about something that he or she was personally involved with, that something will probably remain in the realm of the unknown.

...as people have found out in instances with which I am familiar.

Of course, there is also the fact that there is a first time for everything.

When the amount of historical data is scant or the data cannot be found, one has to use other means for risk analysis. Simulation and testing can serve well. There are just not very many self defense shootings to analyze, and there are far more variables than there are results, making it impossible to draw definitive conclusions from history.

I'm perfectly willing to learn from mock jury results without asking about what may or may have happened in the past.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Maestro Pistolero:

And for me, those precautions mean having a firearm with the least likelihood of cause a round to hit an unintended target. Thus I choose a proper 'carry trigger'. Not incurring criminal or civil liability begins with not injuring an innocent person in the first place.

Very true indeed, and probably worthy of a separate thread.

Question is, is it better to follow the lead of a lot of police departments and CCW instructors (such as my instructor) and carry a gun that requires a long, deliberate, and rather heavy pull of the trigger to reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent discharge under stress, or to have one that is a little more accurate?

I'll bet that the consensus of the experts is the former.

However, I have found that at the range I can usually put more rounds on target more consistently with a good 1911 (the reviewer for Model1911.org tested the model I have and measured the pull at 4.5 pounds) than with DA revolvers or even small striker-fired semi-automatics.

So, which should one choose?

At this point, I do intend to carry my 1911 at least some of the time when the holster arrives from Boise. I will say that the only reasons I have even considered going that route (pistol with a single action trigger) rather than sticking completely with my Centennial and M&P9c are (1) the hopefully lower potential for hitting the wrong target by missing the intended one and (2) the fact that some experienced instructors who have taken advanced FoF training, Fiddletown among them, carry 1911 pistols.

Of course, practice is the real necessity...

 

[maestro pistolero]

When the FBI chose a firearm for their hostage rescue team, the gun that won out was the Springfield Professional 1911 with an approximately 4 pound trigger. When they really needed precision, they went with a 1911.

Fiddletown among them, carry 1911 pistols.

There you have it.

 

[TexasFats]

I think that a defensive firearm should, as a matter of policy be box-stock. What is interesting is that I have read Mas Ayoob say just about the same thing. You see, getting charged after a defensive shooting is not just a matter of murder versus no charges. If a gun has a lightened trigger pull, then there is always the danger of a manslaughter charge, based on the claim that the lightened trigger ("hair trigger" to a prosecuter and the uninformed) caused the gun to discharge accidently, resulting in the death of a "fine individual who was just getting his life turned around."

Mas actually recounts that he testified in a Miami, FL case, years ago, where a cop was being crucified over a shooting. At the time, Janet Reno was the DA for Dade County. The cop ultimately "won", after 3-4 years and two riots in Miami. You don't need to leave that opening.

In a related vein, never say, "I didn't intend to shoot him," because saying that is an admission of manslaughter/negligent homicide.

Also, how hard a time the DA gives you will depend on the jurisdiction. In Travis and Dallas counties in Texas, one is more likely to be charged, or have to spend $50,000 on lawyers than in most other counties. The joke is, shoot a burgler in Travis county and you will have to spend the next year in court. But, if you shoot a burgler in neighboring Williamson county, the police will critique your group and give you tips on accuracy for the next time. That is, of course, exaggerated, but it does illustrate that there is a difference, depending on the jurisdiction.

 

[SVO]

O.J. Simpson

Reading thru all of this reminds me of O.J.'s trials. O.J. was found not guilty in criminal court in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But O.J. was found guilty in civil court in the wrongful death of Ron Goldman. In the end, it was the civil case brought by Goldman's parents that brankrupted O.J. In a civil liability trial, a trigger job and handloads could weigh against you.