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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
If you know how to use one and can keep the range tight, that's really not a bad idea....I think my new home defense weapon will be my razor sharp WW2 vintage Samurai sword.
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?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.
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.
Now we're onto "Ninjas".
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.
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...
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 don't agree that it only benefits the person violating the rule. None of us participating here have any control over what any other member may believe when he/she reads it, or which members other readers may choose to regard as reliable sources for information. Thus, if (for example) Bartholomew Roberts decides to repeat the old wive's tale that if you shoot a potential robber on your front stoop it's better to drag the corpse into the house before calling the cops ... some will read that and laugh, while someone else might look at that and think, "Gee, he's been a member here since 2000 and he has more than 8,000 posts. He probably knows what he's talking about, so I should pay attention."Bartholomew Roberts said: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.
The issue is that the prosecution doesn't have to prove that you committed a crime. The crime is "homicide," which is simply the taking of a human life.ATN082268 said: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
Aguila Blanca said:I don't agree that it only benefits the person violating the rule.
None of us participating here have any control over what any other member may believe when he/she reads it, or which members other readers may choose to regard as reliable sources for information. Thus, if (for example) Bartholomew Roberts decides to repeat the old wive's tale that if you shoot a potential robber on your front stoop it's better to drag the corpse into the house before calling the cops ... some will read that and laugh, while someone else might look at that and think, "Gee, he's been a member here since 2000 and he has more than 8,000 posts. He probably knows what he's talking about, so I should pay attention."
I agree. It’s not that Aguila Blanca is wrong in his points, but the fact that T. O’Heir has been allowed to constantly spout the same bad information for many years despite constant corrections shows some inconsistencies with the spirit of TFL rules. Maybe we need a new “T. O’Heir Rule”...So if I gave bad advice by suggesting something illegal, that would be bad because a novice member might believe it. But if I repeatedly told people that .223 is unsafe to use for home defense and never responded to a single factual counterpoint, I bet I could get away with that for decades. And members would just have to use their judgment in evaluating that info. That strikes me as ironic.
Why would it be? What does "raise some eyebrows" mean where you live?Yes, but is it illegal?
No, but it can certainly have a severe impact, especially in the short term, on someone's state of mind.As Bill Jordan said, A loud noise never hurt anyone.
There is no TFL rule against holding opinions which are not supported by the evidence or that aren't popular, or that are unique. There's also no rule against being wrong. Which is good because most anyone who posts very much is going to be wrong eventually--maybe more than once....has been allowed to constantly spout the same bad information for many years...
However ... there IS a rule against "Knowingly and willfully advocating violation of a standing federal or state law (any state)."JohnKSa said:There is no TFL rule against holding opinions which are not supported by the evidence or that aren't popular, or that are unique. There's also no rule against being wrong. Which is good because most anyone who posts very much is going to be wrong eventually--maybe more than once.