Beware of the Bullet Demons

It’s no secret that anti-gun, anti-self-defense lawyers, politicians, and lobbyists…


It’s no secret that anti-gun, anti-self-defense lawyers, politicians, and lobbyists demonize guns based upon the power of the cartridges, and their firepower (round count) as well. Anyone involved in a lot of criminal court and civil court cases involving shootings has seen it happen.

bullet2.gifOn the various Internet gun forums, liability and false accusation are issues that often arise. When the question of the moment is something like “full metal jacket versus hollow points,” someone will almost always post the opinion that they carry FMJ, at least in part, so they won’t be vulnerable to claims that they used “deadly killer dum-dum bullets.”

Another common theme is, “I think I’m going to use a .38 instead of a .357 or a .45 for home defense so I won’t look bloodthirsty.” On one popular board, an educator postulated that loading the home defense gun with blanks would be the ultimate solution. I suspect he posted that with his tongue firmly in his cheek, but most responders took him seriously, and to their collective credit, explained all that was wrong with the idea.

Load Comments
  • DJ

    My stepmother works for the government and she said that the law is all mixed up and it doesnt make any sense for all of us! Stupidest Human race ever live!

  • R Terry

    I am a licensed CHL holder, I carry a Springfield XD 5″ Tactical .40cal with Crimson Trace sights.

    In reading the article: “Justified Shooting, Cartridges Too Deadly” found in the Sept ’08 issue, a nagging thought, again, crossed my mind.

    In today’s world of liberal lawyers trying to force their personal vendetta through the court system, where do licensed CHL holders that have military combat experience stand when faced with the inherent legal consequences of a “good” shoot? I will quantify the “good” by saying this; Under the same circumstances, a person that had no formal training in the use of firearms other than their CHL course would have reacted the same way.

    The military stresses the thought of “kill or be killed” vs. civilian law “shoot to ‘stop’ the threat.”

    Is there legal precedence in regards to this? Has there been a case in which a over zealous DA prosecuted a military service veteran saying “the military taught you to kill, you must have had a premeditated thought?”

  • Pingback: » Combat Handguns()