That's okay, you could just cite a case where ANY scary gun resulted in a conviction.
That is not the only issue because a conviction is not the only way to lose in court. Civil cases don't result in conviction but can certainly ruin a person's life. In addition, it is generally much easier to lose a civil case as the defendant because the standard of proof is much lighter for the plaintiff to satisfy.
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.
That's okay, you could just cite a case where ANY scary gun resulted in a conviction.
This combines a number of fuzzy thinking errors.
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.
The argument is that using a scary gun could land a person in jail. This argument cannot be true unless it has happened.
This claim is a major fail. Just a very little thought will demonstrate that if the claim were true then nothing (absolutely nothing) ever happens.
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.
My ear testing facility also told me that if you get to them jn 72 hours they can mostly reverse it.
I have read that early and aggressive treatment with steroids can often prevent hearing damage from becoming permanent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102156/#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]
