Comments

WHY WE USE EXPANDING BULLETS, PART IV: FASTER “STOPS” — No Comments

  1. Dave The Liberal. Mas and friends:

    I find I must jump in with both feet.

    1) The cite of the Model Penal Code (MPC) sounds reasoned and erudite, but the implications of MPC adoption in self-defense matters is troubling. – It is called “model code” that for a reason. It is the product of a group of academic lawyers as a project by the American Law Institute, circa 1962. The MPC is an attempt to reformulate and standardize American law across state lines, by giving legislatures a model text they could adopt as they reformed or rewrote their own penal codes. The announced goal was to create nationally , state penal codes that reflect “contemporary reason and judgement”.

    The problem with the “self-defense” portion of the MPC is that it was created by consitutionally “liberal” academics, primarily Henry Wechsler. Wechsler, never in private practice, will be remembered as Assistant Attorney General for FDR – notably he was famous for defending, in the Korematsu case, the US Government’s forced internment, without due process of law, of law-abiding Japanese – Americans during WWII. Wechsler and his fellow draft code writers were on board with the “flexible” or “living” constitution interpretation of civil rights and Constitutional protections- hence the stated goal of reform reflecting” contemporary reason and judgement.” Wechsler was no friend of the civil liberties which fall in the penumbra and emanations of the Second Amendment.

    I have no problems with the UCC or the work ALI has done in Property, or Transactions or Torts, but “Self-Defense and Second Amendment” issues are very different. Self-defense is a “fundamental right”, and the Supreme Court has said so – see DC v. Heller 554 US 570 , (2008), and MacDonald v. Chicago ,561 US 3025 (2010). I, for one, do not want my self-defense rights sacrificed on the altar of the MPC, because a bunch of leftist academic lawyers decided that I must retreat, because, you know, it would be good for society.

    I do not want my self-defense rights, or any of my other Second Amendment rights, subject to ” contemporary reason and judgement”. I think the Founding Fathers reason and judgement , as reflected in the Constitution is quite sufficient.

    2) It is suggested that there is no problem with abolition of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws, because retreat is not required, at least under MPC, unless it is “known” that it can be accomplished in “complete safety”.

    That opens a giant can of worms, unfortunately, and I believe that SYG-prohibitionists want that can of worms opened. I think that they seek to make armed self-defense so frought with risk that people will chose not to do so.

    What is this can of worms? It is multi-parous- the prosecutor gets to delve into the victims state of mind concerning possibility of retreat. What did he know,? Did he really know it? What does it mean to “know” that you can “safely” retreat? What is “safe”?

    At a time when the victim is in fear for his life and under an unprovoked , felonious and deadly attack, the victim is required to devote substantial mental effort to calculating retreat routes and answering questions regarding safety of escape – certain that not only his actual self-defense efforts will be scrutinized, but also the decisions about retreating or not. These are the very issues that SYG laws were intended to eliminate.

    In the US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. US 256 US 335 (1921) Justice Holmes summed it up neatly- ” Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife”. The ruling – there is no duty to retreat, and defendant Brown killed attacker Hermes legally, even though he did not attempt to run away. The Brown ruling gave social progressives the vapors and the “no stand your ground” position of the MPC is possibly a distant offspring of that result.

    3) it is suggested that abolishing SYG would reduce self-defense shootings, and thus better protect innocent by-standers. This is insupportable, but is an excellent example of tortured and illogical wishful thinking.

    If SYG is abolished , the bad guys will still do their rob-’em, stick-’em up, thug thing. Their risk of meeting armed resistance will merely go down, as some people, afraid that resistance will merely result in their imprisonment or impoverishment will not resist. They will submit to the danger and indignity of a criminal assault rather than face the “tittle and jot” scrutiny of an anti-self-defense prosecutor and legal system. Abolition of SYG will merely make the thugs safer. Just look at the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom, where armed self-defense of any type against thugs and rapists often results in more severe punishment of the victim than of the perpetrators.

    As for the straw man argument that SYG should be abolished because armed citizens represent a threat to innocent bystanders who may be hit by defensive gunfire , I can only ask one thing – please provide me examples.
    Police regularly hit bystanders; police regularly shoot the wrong person. Armed private citizens do this so infrequently that the rate of occurrence is statistically zero.

    The attacks on SYG are another attempt by the anti-gun crowd to de-legitimize the common carriage of weapons , and make the whole idea of an armed citizenry a souce of fear to the uninformed and gullible.The ultimate goal is the reversal of the “concealed-carry” trend, because the whole thing removes power form the hands of the State and returns it to the people, and leftist statists simply cannot abide that concept.

    Self-defense, you see, is not a fixed,bedrock, absolute, fundamental, natural God-given right , but rather it should be subject to “contemporary reason and judgement”; the “judgement and reason” of modern liberal academic lawyers.

    No thank you – instead of the “model” proposals of Wechsler and his colleagues, I’ll stick with the creations of Madison, Monroe, Hamilton,Jay and their fellows.

    Regards
    GKT

  2. Dave The Liberal. Mas and friends:

    I find I must jump in with both feet.

    1) The cite of the Model Penal Code (MPC) sounds reasoned and erudite, but the implications of MPC adoption in self-defense matters is troubling. – It is called “model code” that for a reason. It is the product of a group of academic lawyers as a project by the American Law Institute, circa 1962. The MPC is an attempt to reformulate and standardize American law across state lines, by giving legislatures a model text they could adopt as they reformed or rewrote their own penal codes. The announced goal was to create nationally , state penal codes that reflect “contemporary reason and judgement”.

    The problem with the “self-defense” portion of the MPC is that it was created by consitutionally “liberal” academics, primarily Henry Wechsler. Wechsler, never in private practice, will be remembered as Assistant Attorney General for FDR – notably he was famous for defending, in the Korematsu case, the US Government’s forced internment, without due process of law, of law-abiding Japanese – Americans during WWII. Wechsler and his fellow draft code writers were on board with the “flexible” or “living” constitution interpretation of civil rights and Constitutional protections- hence the stated goal of reform reflecting” contemporary reason and judgement.” Wechsler was no friend of the civil liberties which fall in the penumbra and emanations of the Second Amendment.

    I have no problems with the UCC or the work ALI has done in Property, or Transactions or Torts, but “Self-Defense and Second Amendment” issues are very different. Self-defense is a “fundamental right”, and the Supreme Court has said so – see DC v. Heller 554 US 570 , (2008), and MacDonald v. Chicago ,561 US 3025 (2010). I, for one, do not want my self-defense rights sacrificed on the altar of the MPC, because a bunch of leftist academic lawyers decided that I must retreat, because, you know, it would be good for society.

    I do not want my self-defense rights, or any of my other Second Amendment rights, subject to ” contemporary reason and judgement”. I think the Founding Fathers reason and judgement , as reflected in the Constitution is quite sufficient.

    2) It is suggested that there is no problem with abolition of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws, because retreat is not required, at least under MPC, unless it is “known” that it can be accomplished in “complete safety”.

    That opens a giant can of worms, unfortunately, and I believe that SYG-prohibitionists want that can of worms opened. I think that they seek to make armed self-defense so frought with risk that people will chose not to do so.

    What is this can of worms? It is multi-parous- the prosecutor gets to delve into the victims state of mind concerning possibility of retreat. What did he know,? Did he really know it? What does it mean to “know” that you can “safely” retreat? What is “safe”?

    At a time when the victim is in fear for his life and under an unprovoked , felonious and deadly attack, the victim is required to devote substantial mental effort to calculating retreat routes and answering questions regarding safety of escape – certain that not only his actual self-defense efforts will be scrutinized, but also the decisions about retreating or not. These are the very issues that SYG laws were intended to eliminate.

    In the US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. US 256 US 335 (1921) Justice Holmes summed it up neatly- ” Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife”. The ruling – there is no duty to retreat, and defendant Brown killed attacker Hermes legally, even though he did not attempt to run away. The Brown ruling gave social progressives the vapors and the “no stand your ground” position of the MPC is possibly a distant offspring of that result.

    3) it is suggested that abolishing SYG would reduce self-defense shootings, and thus better protect innocent by-standers. This is insupportable, but is an excellent example of tortured and illogical wishful thinking.

    If SYG is abolished , the bad guys will still do their rob-’em, stick-’em up, thug thing. Their risk of meeting armed resistance will merely go down, as some people, afraid that resistance will merely result in their imprisonment or impoverishment will not resist. They will submit to the danger and indignity of a criminal assault rather than face the “tittle and jot” scrutiny of an anti-self-defense prosecutor and legal system. Abolition of SYG will merely make the thugs safer. Just look at the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom, where armed self-defense of any type against thugs and rapists often results in more severe punishment of the victim than of the perpetrators.

    As for the straw man argument that SYG should be abolished because armed citizens represent a threat to innocent bystanders who may be hit by defensive gunfire , I can only ask one thing – please provide me examples.
    Police regularly hit bystanders; police regularly shoot the wrong person. Armed private citizens do this so infrequently that the rate of occurrence is statistically zero.

    The attacks on SYG are another attempt by the anti-gun crowd to de-legitimize the common carriage of weapons , and make the whole idea of an armed citizenry a souce of fear to the uninformed and gullible.The ultimate goal is the reversal of the “concealed-carry” trend, because the whole thing removes power form the hands of the State and returns it to the people, and leftist statists simply cannot abide that concept.

    Self-defense, you see, is not a fixed,bedrock, absolute, fundamental, natural God-given right , but rather it should be subject to “contemporary reason and judgement”; the “judgement and reason” of modern liberal academic lawyers.

    No thank you – instead of the “model” proposals of Wechsler and his colleagues, I’ll stick with the creations of Madison, Monroe, Hamilton,Jay and their fellows.

    Regards
    GKT

  3. Tom 606-no offense but there is an old saying,” beware the man with one gun, for he probably knows how to use it”.

  4. Tom 606-no offense but there is an old saying,” beware the man with one gun, for he probably knows how to use it”.

  5. The reason we are having this discussion about retreating and SYG is because in the U.S. we generally agree that human life is precious. That is why many are against abortions, we try to live long lives through modern medicine, and we coddle criminals, hoping they will reform. The problem is there are SEVEN BILLION human beings on this planet. And it would be a better planet if we could at least get rid of the first degree murderers. Criminals are not precious, they are predators, who damage and take the lives of good people. Taking the life of a bad person is a good thing, it is a very good thing. The human race is in no danger of extinction. We are afraid of giving government the power to take the lives of the reprobate because throughout history that power has been abused, and used against the innocent. So, in order to prevent the abuses of the past, today’s criminals are treated gently. They are released from prison and then they often do more harm. It is too bad we cannot find the balance that would be true justice. Government should do good things to good people and bad things to bad people. We need a better system of rewards and punishments. The oldest system of rewards and punishments I know of is Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

  6. The reason we are having this discussion about retreating and SYG is because in the U.S. we generally agree that human life is precious. That is why many are against abortions, we try to live long lives through modern medicine, and we coddle criminals, hoping they will reform. The problem is there are SEVEN BILLION human beings on this planet. And it would be a better planet if we could at least get rid of the first degree murderers. Criminals are not precious, they are predators, who damage and take the lives of good people. Taking the life of a bad person is a good thing, it is a very good thing. The human race is in no danger of extinction. We are afraid of giving government the power to take the lives of the reprobate because throughout history that power has been abused, and used against the innocent. So, in order to prevent the abuses of the past, today’s criminals are treated gently. They are released from prison and then they often do more harm. It is too bad we cannot find the balance that would be true justice. Government should do good things to good people and bad things to bad people. We need a better system of rewards and punishments. The oldest system of rewards and punishments I know of is Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

  7. @Greg Tag: Unfortunately, I wasn’t proposing adoption of the Model Penal Code, but only using it as an example of the boundaries of the duty to retreat. Nonetheless, you say:

    > I do not want my self-defense rights, or any of my other
    > Second Amendment rights, subject to ” contemporary reason and
    > judgement”. I think the Founding Fathers reason and judgement
    > , as reflected in the Constitution is quite sufficient.

    However, even if I had been so proposing it, let me note that conservative legal scholar Prof. Eugene Volokh has said, in speaking of the idea of a constitutional right to self-defense, “[T]he ‘duty to retreat,’ which is to say the principle that deadly force can only be used in self-defense if it’s genuinely necessary, in that no safe avenue of retreat is available, is likely to be constitutional, too, because it has long been recognized in at least a substantial minority of states. There may be other examples as well. My point is that a federal constitutional right to self-defense likely exists, especially in the wake of Heller. But it is not unlimited, and is likely to be strongest precisely where there’s a broad and deep common-law and statutory tradition of recognizing such a right.” http://www.volokh.com/posts/1248194157.shtml Thus, the notion of a duty to retreat isn’t the product of either “contemporary reason and judgement” or the “‘judgement and reason’ of modern liberal academic lawyers” and doesn’t likely improperly restrict any constitutional right to self-defense which you may have.

    You say, in reference to the question of proof of knowledge, “SYG-prohibitionists want that can of worms opened. I think that they seek to make armed self-defense so frought with risk that people will chose not to do so.” There is an element of truth in that, though I’d state it differently.

    Mas has made it clear, time and again, that shooting someone in self-defense approaches an act of insanity unless you have no other choice. If everyone who engaged in SD gun ownership were required to take Mas’ MAG 40 class and be certified by the instructors at the end that they “got it,” I wouldn’t probably be posting to this blog. But they’re not. The ones who have CCL’s have had a course which probably focuses mainly on safety and proficiency but not on the liabilities and risks of SD as Mas does, the ones who don’t in most cases don’t have a clue about those issues and the ones with a half a clue … well, let me just say “Raul Rodriguez” http://tinyurl.com/6vqfezx (Houston Chronicle) — and he’d HAD a CCL class. Yes, indeed, we need something which makes people extremely apprehensive about using self-defense because — and the following assumption may just be my liberal bias poking through — if we were to arrange all of America’s SD gun owners by SD knowledge and apprehension on a giant teeter-totter with Raul on one end and Mas on the other and then yelled “legs up” I rather suspect that Mas would be launched into orbit when Raul’s end of the see-saw hit the ground.

    I’d be more than happy to give up the legal duty to retreat if I could exchange it for some assurance that the average armed citizen had obtained that apprehension through comprehensive classroom and range training of the kind that Mas provides but putting that kind of time and cost burden on gun ownership is not likely to happen, per Prof. Volokh, due to the very court cases you cited above, so it needs to come from restrictions on the right of SD itself and the fear of going to jail if you get it wrong. People ought to have that fear anyway, even with SYG laws, but that is the exact problem with the SYG law campaign: it gives the false impression to those on Raul’s end of the see-saw that they have nothing to fear.

  8. @Greg Tag: Unfortunately, I wasn’t proposing adoption of the Model Penal Code, but only using it as an example of the boundaries of the duty to retreat. Nonetheless, you say:

    > I do not want my self-defense rights, or any of my other
    > Second Amendment rights, subject to ” contemporary reason and
    > judgement”. I think the Founding Fathers reason and judgement
    > , as reflected in the Constitution is quite sufficient.

    However, even if I had been so proposing it, let me note that conservative legal scholar Prof. Eugene Volokh has said, in speaking of the idea of a constitutional right to self-defense, “[T]he ‘duty to retreat,’ which is to say the principle that deadly force can only be used in self-defense if it’s genuinely necessary, in that no safe avenue of retreat is available, is likely to be constitutional, too, because it has long been recognized in at least a substantial minority of states. There may be other examples as well. My point is that a federal constitutional right to self-defense likely exists, especially in the wake of Heller. But it is not unlimited, and is likely to be strongest precisely where there’s a broad and deep common-law and statutory tradition of recognizing such a right.” http://www.volokh.com/posts/1248194157.shtml Thus, the notion of a duty to retreat isn’t the product of either “contemporary reason and judgement” or the “‘judgement and reason’ of modern liberal academic lawyers” and doesn’t likely improperly restrict any constitutional right to self-defense which you may have.

    You say, in reference to the question of proof of knowledge, “SYG-prohibitionists want that can of worms opened. I think that they seek to make armed self-defense so frought with risk that people will chose not to do so.” There is an element of truth in that, though I’d state it differently.

    Mas has made it clear, time and again, that shooting someone in self-defense approaches an act of insanity unless you have no other choice. If everyone who engaged in SD gun ownership were required to take Mas’ MAG 40 class and be certified by the instructors at the end that they “got it,” I wouldn’t probably be posting to this blog. But they’re not. The ones who have CCL’s have had a course which probably focuses mainly on safety and proficiency but not on the liabilities and risks of SD as Mas does, the ones who don’t in most cases don’t have a clue about those issues and the ones with a half a clue … well, let me just say “Raul Rodriguez” http://tinyurl.com/6vqfezx (Houston Chronicle) — and he’d HAD a CCL class. Yes, indeed, we need something which makes people extremely apprehensive about using self-defense because — and the following assumption may just be my liberal bias poking through — if we were to arrange all of America’s SD gun owners by SD knowledge and apprehension on a giant teeter-totter with Raul on one end and Mas on the other and then yelled “legs up” I rather suspect that Mas would be launched into orbit when Raul’s end of the see-saw hit the ground.

    I’d be more than happy to give up the legal duty to retreat if I could exchange it for some assurance that the average armed citizen had obtained that apprehension through comprehensive classroom and range training of the kind that Mas provides but putting that kind of time and cost burden on gun ownership is not likely to happen, per Prof. Volokh, due to the very court cases you cited above, so it needs to come from restrictions on the right of SD itself and the fear of going to jail if you get it wrong. People ought to have that fear anyway, even with SYG laws, but that is the exact problem with the SYG law campaign: it gives the false impression to those on Raul’s end of the see-saw that they have nothing to fear.

  9. Dave
    .

    Its late, and I am teaching tomorrow, so I do not have time to craft an elegant reply, but I will assay a brief response.

    1) Your “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. I read Professor Volokh and respect his views, although if you have correctly stated his position , I believe he is in error, for several reasons. First, simply because an abridgement of a Constitutional right has been common, and has occurred for a long time, that does not make it Constitutional. See the sense of the previously cited Heller and MacDonald decisions, and even more acutely, Shepherd v. Madigan702 F.3d 933 (2012). To restate MacDonald bluntly, the Court found that simply because Chicago had oppressed and violated the rights of its residents for a long time did not make the oppresssion and denial constitutional. In Shepard, the 7th Circuit found the same result regarding the actions of the State of Illinois.

    Long standing abridgement of a right does not make that abridgement constituional.

    2) As for Raul Rodriguez- I suggest you read a full brief of the case and apprise yourself of all the facts before basing your argument on Rodriguez. At any rate, the case is irrelevant to “stand your ground’ because Rodriguez provoked the fight, and even though he recorded himself uttering ” I am standing my ground” numerous times during the altercation, the jury rejected his claim of lawful self-defense. His SYG claim was wholly rejected because his actions did not meet the statutory requirement of Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.31 or 9.32. The use of deadly force must be reasonable before the “no duty to retreat” provisions of the statute even come in to play. Rodriguez never even got there, regardless of his attempt; the jury found his actions not reasonable, and the apparent provocations provided by the party-goers not reaching threshold required by 9.32.

    I note that numerous party-goers were drunk, and had they not been drunk, the conflict might not have escalated. I have an idea, lets make alcohol harder to purchase – make alcohol buyers take a class on safe alcohol use before they can purchase ; even better raise the alcohol buying age to 30, so we can be sure that alcohol buyers are mature people with good judgement. Even better, lets just outlaw the stuff altogether – oops, we did that before, didnt we?

    I digress.

    Rodriguez was found by a jury to have broken the law, his SYG claim provided him no safe harbor and was summarily rejected, and he will likely spend the rest of his life in Huntsville guest of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

    In other words, the Texas self-defense and SYG statutes worked exactly as they were supposed to- he was not justified in his homicide; according to the jury he murdered his neighbor and he was swiftly punished with the full force of the law.

    If there had been no SYG in Texas, it is suggested that Rodriguez would have conducted himself differently. Not having a crystal ball, I cannot say. I can say that the mere fact that he misused his liberty and exercised extremely poor judgement is no reason to punish others by reducing their liberty; thus increasing the danger to themselves and their posterity because you are uncomfortable with the possibility of their misusing their liberty.

    3) Several related comments:

    Mas, in his writings and teachings, such as his recent presentation to the Texas Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar , has been very clear about the gravity of a self-defense shooting. At no time have I ever gotten from him the idea it was near insanity- serious business, yes, Insanity , No. In fact, the legal, justifiable and appropriate use of deadly force “in the gravest extreme” is far from insanity, it is a decision triggered by the most serious and earnest rational calculation.

    As for the suggestion that “not shooting” is not emphasized enough in properly conducted training, I would first like to hear what your experience has been in self-defense classes that were aimed, not at mechanics, but the whole practice of concealed carry. I have found, at least among the instructors I know , a uniform concern about the legality and morality of carrying and using a defensive firearm. Please provide me with any examples you have of a cavalier attitude, or a “shoot and shovel” mentality among instructors.

    With freedom comes the opportunity to misuse freedom; that is the way this “liberty” thing works. If everyone lived in the Gulag, crime would probably be substantially reduced, but that is a trade-off I am unwilling to make.

    My apologies, Mas, for taking your name in vain- please correct me if I have misinterpreted your doctrinal teaching.

    Regards

    GKT

  10. Dave
    .

    Its late, and I am teaching tomorrow, so I do not have time to craft an elegant reply, but I will assay a brief response.

    1) Your “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. I read Professor Volokh and respect his views, although if you have correctly stated his position , I believe he is in error, for several reasons. First, simply because an abridgement of a Constitutional right has been common, and has occurred for a long time, that does not make it Constitutional. See the sense of the previously cited Heller and MacDonald decisions, and even more acutely, Shepherd v. Madigan702 F.3d 933 (2012). To restate MacDonald bluntly, the Court found that simply because Chicago had oppressed and violated the rights of its residents for a long time did not make the oppresssion and denial constitutional. In Shepard, the 7th Circuit found the same result regarding the actions of the State of Illinois.

    Long standing abridgement of a right does not make that abridgement constituional.

    2) As for Raul Rodriguez- I suggest you read a full brief of the case and apprise yourself of all the facts before basing your argument on Rodriguez. At any rate, the case is irrelevant to “stand your ground’ because Rodriguez provoked the fight, and even though he recorded himself uttering ” I am standing my ground” numerous times during the altercation, the jury rejected his claim of lawful self-defense. His SYG claim was wholly rejected because his actions did not meet the statutory requirement of Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.31 or 9.32. The use of deadly force must be reasonable before the “no duty to retreat” provisions of the statute even come in to play. Rodriguez never even got there, regardless of his attempt; the jury found his actions not reasonable, and the apparent provocations provided by the party-goers not reaching threshold required by 9.32.

    I note that numerous party-goers were drunk, and had they not been drunk, the conflict might not have escalated. I have an idea, lets make alcohol harder to purchase – make alcohol buyers take a class on safe alcohol use before they can purchase ; even better raise the alcohol buying age to 30, so we can be sure that alcohol buyers are mature people with good judgement. Even better, lets just outlaw the stuff altogether – oops, we did that before, didnt we?

    I digress.

    Rodriguez was found by a jury to have broken the law, his SYG claim provided him no safe harbor and was summarily rejected, and he will likely spend the rest of his life in Huntsville guest of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

    In other words, the Texas self-defense and SYG statutes worked exactly as they were supposed to- he was not justified in his homicide; according to the jury he murdered his neighbor and he was swiftly punished with the full force of the law.

    If there had been no SYG in Texas, it is suggested that Rodriguez would have conducted himself differently. Not having a crystal ball, I cannot say. I can say that the mere fact that he misused his liberty and exercised extremely poor judgement is no reason to punish others by reducing their liberty; thus increasing the danger to themselves and their posterity because you are uncomfortable with the possibility of their misusing their liberty.

    3) Several related comments:

    Mas, in his writings and teachings, such as his recent presentation to the Texas Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar , has been very clear about the gravity of a self-defense shooting. At no time have I ever gotten from him the idea it was near insanity- serious business, yes, Insanity , No. In fact, the legal, justifiable and appropriate use of deadly force “in the gravest extreme” is far from insanity, it is a decision triggered by the most serious and earnest rational calculation.

    As for the suggestion that “not shooting” is not emphasized enough in properly conducted training, I would first like to hear what your experience has been in self-defense classes that were aimed, not at mechanics, but the whole practice of concealed carry. I have found, at least among the instructors I know , a uniform concern about the legality and morality of carrying and using a defensive firearm. Please provide me with any examples you have of a cavalier attitude, or a “shoot and shovel” mentality among instructors.

    With freedom comes the opportunity to misuse freedom; that is the way this “liberty” thing works. If everyone lived in the Gulag, crime would probably be substantially reduced, but that is a trade-off I am unwilling to make.

    My apologies, Mas, for taking your name in vain- please correct me if I have misinterpreted your doctrinal teaching.

    Regards

    GKT

  11. I don’t know how SYG is part of defensive ammo seliection??? I seem to recall SYG being subject here before? (or is my memory fading?)

    As SYG seems to be subject. It just seems to make sense that honest, law abiding folks should run from criminals. Right?

  12. I don’t know how SYG is part of defensive ammo seliection??? I seem to recall SYG being subject here before? (or is my memory fading?)

    As SYG seems to be subject. It just seems to make sense that honest, law abiding folks should run from criminals. Right?

  13. @ Old Fezzywig

    Congratulations, you have just given the absolute best reason that I have ever heard for the NEED FOR SYG LAWS!

    And, FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TOO!

    Paul

  14. @ Old Fezzywig

    Congratulations, you have just given the absolute best reason that I have ever heard for the NEED FOR SYG LAWS!

    And, FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TOO!

    Paul

  15. I won’t take Dave’s bait (he read In the Gravest Extreme, as I did, and knows Mas enough that his point was completely unnecessary on top of off-topic… so we all know what the purpose was), laughed at Tom606’s ironic comment, and just wanted to add this: stopping who needs to be stopped as fast as possible is not only in the interest of the shooter and any possible bystanders or victims, but also in the shootee’s.

    While the antis are so busy finding terminal ballistics discussions distasteful and irrelevant to their approach (“don’t have a gun”), they seem to miss that one effective bullet, as abhorrent as the term ‘effective’ may be to them, is preferable to 12 ineffective ones in the target’s body. Hollow points are actually more humane. Unless they prefer that we load with icepick projectiles so they can better nail us in the courtroom for overkill?

    I’ve been in several situations where I could’ve legally shot someone… and I didn’t. I’m glad for so many reasons, and none of them is sympathy for criminals, by the way. But if find myself unlucky enough to again face the choice, and have no alternative but to shoot… I want the best way to stop the threat as fast as possible.
    This is rational thinking, free of emotions, and I know that antis can’t deal with it. They can pray or bury their head in the sand for all I care. It’s a discussion about tools, not tactics, legal strategy or moral standing.

  16. I won’t take Dave’s bait (he read In the Gravest Extreme, as I did, and knows Mas enough that his point was completely unnecessary on top of off-topic… so we all know what the purpose was), laughed at Tom606’s ironic comment, and just wanted to add this: stopping who needs to be stopped as fast as possible is not only in the interest of the shooter and any possible bystanders or victims, but also in the shootee’s.

    While the antis are so busy finding terminal ballistics discussions distasteful and irrelevant to their approach (“don’t have a gun”), they seem to miss that one effective bullet, as abhorrent as the term ‘effective’ may be to them, is preferable to 12 ineffective ones in the target’s body. Hollow points are actually more humane. Unless they prefer that we load with icepick projectiles so they can better nail us in the courtroom for overkill?

    I’ve been in several situations where I could’ve legally shot someone… and I didn’t. I’m glad for so many reasons, and none of them is sympathy for criminals, by the way. But if find myself unlucky enough to again face the choice, and have no alternative but to shoot… I want the best way to stop the threat as fast as possible.
    This is rational thinking, free of emotions, and I know that antis can’t deal with it. They can pray or bury their head in the sand for all I care. It’s a discussion about tools, not tactics, legal strategy or moral standing.

  17. @Greg Tag. You make very good points, especially about the Rodriguez case. Considering the role alcohol (and other drugs) play in incidents causing serious harm and death, we could certainly focus more on responsible use of alcohol, etc. in public schools. I support hunter’s safety classes as an elective in school and will continue to help the voc-ag. departments that include it as after hours curriculum any way I can. Ten more weeks to go and I’m retiring from public education; then I will be as vocal as I like!

  18. @Greg Tag. You make very good points, especially about the Rodriguez case. Considering the role alcohol (and other drugs) play in incidents causing serious harm and death, we could certainly focus more on responsible use of alcohol, etc. in public schools. I support hunter’s safety classes as an elective in school and will continue to help the voc-ag. departments that include it as after hours curriculum any way I can. Ten more weeks to go and I’m retiring from public education; then I will be as vocal as I like!

  19. @Greg Tag: I’m going to try to be brief here. Both your response to my comments about Rodriguez and about near insanity are non sequitur to my comments. I wasn’t holding up Rodriguez as a SYG example, but as an example of “the ones who don’t in most cases don’t have a clue about those issues and the ones with a half a clue” and who have been misled by the SYG hype, per Rodriguez reciting on the phone to the police dispatcher, “I’m standing my ground” as if it were a mystical incantation which would ward off prosecution. As for near insanity, when you say, “At no time have I ever gotten from [Mas] the idea it was near insanity,” you leave off my qualifier, “unless you have no other choice.” No, I don’t recall him ever saying even that much, per se, but I don’t think that it overstates his position.

    That leaves the stuff about Volokh and the constitutional right of self defense. To that, I’ll only comment that the extent of such a right and whether that right has any force or effect whatsoever beyond being a justification for a personal right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is anyone’s guess. Personally, I rather doubt that it has any legs, especially if it comes before a future Supreme Court which is more liberal than the present one, but we won’t know until we get there.

  20. @Greg Tag: I’m going to try to be brief here. Both your response to my comments about Rodriguez and about near insanity are non sequitur to my comments. I wasn’t holding up Rodriguez as a SYG example, but as an example of “the ones who don’t in most cases don’t have a clue about those issues and the ones with a half a clue” and who have been misled by the SYG hype, per Rodriguez reciting on the phone to the police dispatcher, “I’m standing my ground” as if it were a mystical incantation which would ward off prosecution. As for near insanity, when you say, “At no time have I ever gotten from [Mas] the idea it was near insanity,” you leave off my qualifier, “unless you have no other choice.” No, I don’t recall him ever saying even that much, per se, but I don’t think that it overstates his position.

    That leaves the stuff about Volokh and the constitutional right of self defense. To that, I’ll only comment that the extent of such a right and whether that right has any force or effect whatsoever beyond being a justification for a personal right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is anyone’s guess. Personally, I rather doubt that it has any legs, especially if it comes before a future Supreme Court which is more liberal than the present one, but we won’t know until we get there.

  21. Dave – hopefully you DO realize the misbehaving liberals (and others) you refer to are very much the minority fools on this planet. The sad fact is they are also the loudest and the most affluent people who use their wealth and volume to drown out all reason. As long as the rest of us allow them to control what we see and hear, there is little hope for resolution of the most vital issues.

  22. Dave – hopefully you DO realize the misbehaving liberals (and others) you refer to are very much the minority fools on this planet. The sad fact is they are also the loudest and the most affluent people who use their wealth and volume to drown out all reason. As long as the rest of us allow them to control what we see and hear, there is little hope for resolution of the most vital issues.

  23. To get back to the original post: A ball round will push aside blood vessels and organs and essentially leak through the attacker and transfer little energy, over penetrate and possibly kill an innocent bystander. The wadcutter or semi-wadutter is better because it will slice through blood vessels and organs like a cookie cutter, but will still over penetrate. The hollow point, if it performs as intended, will open up, increasing its cross sectional area that will slow it down, transfer more energy and hopefully stay inside the attackers body. The question arises over the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the human body and how organs are affected. I think we have all seen the tests on ballistic gelatin and the high speed photography showing how the gelatin momentarily is displaced by the pressure.
    We all know that we are not all constructed the same. Fat guys are going to have more fluids and possibly be more affected by the hydrostatic pressure. On the other hand a dedicated martial arts expert will have more lean muscle tissue smaller organs and be able to soak up more bullets. Any comments?

  24. To get back to the original post: A ball round will push aside blood vessels and organs and essentially leak through the attacker and transfer little energy, over penetrate and possibly kill an innocent bystander. The wadcutter or semi-wadutter is better because it will slice through blood vessels and organs like a cookie cutter, but will still over penetrate. The hollow point, if it performs as intended, will open up, increasing its cross sectional area that will slow it down, transfer more energy and hopefully stay inside the attackers body. The question arises over the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the human body and how organs are affected. I think we have all seen the tests on ballistic gelatin and the high speed photography showing how the gelatin momentarily is displaced by the pressure.
    We all know that we are not all constructed the same. Fat guys are going to have more fluids and possibly be more affected by the hydrostatic pressure. On the other hand a dedicated martial arts expert will have more lean muscle tissue smaller organs and be able to soak up more bullets. Any comments?

  25. Dave the Liberal:

    I thought my comments were precisely on point. You cited Rodriguez as a reason to abandon SYG. I countered with the fact that SYG was not even relevant to the case, regardless of the huffing and puffing of the mass media. The fact that Rodriguez exercised extremely poor judgement and failed to act in a “reasonable” manner got him convicted, even with the SYG law in place. I reject any calculus that says that because it is possible to misuse liberty, that liberty should be curtained or completely denied. That is the reasoning of the police state.

    As for the discussion of “near insanity, unless you have no other choice”, you have created a straw man again. The legal standard in almost every jurisdiction is “reasonable”, ie, what would a “reasonable person, given the same known facts and circumstances, do?” Even the phrase you select “near insanity” hints at “UNREASONABLE”, someone who is insane cannot excercise reasonable judgement, and to be “nearly insane would hint at at least approaching a lack of ability to use reason and good judgement.

    It is unreasonable to use deadly force on a whim or a maybe, it is unreasonable when there are other effective solutions. The man who sticks a gun in my face and says “gimme your wallet” is threatening to kill me for the contents of my wallet. Presenting the gun and the demand, the unstated portion of the communication is ” …or I will shoot you”.

    Under such a threat, it is not insane, and entirely resonable, to defend myself with deadly force. There are 2 other alternatives,firstly to comply and hope for the best that he doesnt just shoot me for kicks after he has been given my wallet. In that circumstance, I am relying on the mercy and good will of an armed robber- a potential murderer. That is not reasonable, merely hopeful.

    Secondly, I can turn and attempt to flee; I will probably get shot in the back.

    It is unreasonable, therefor, not to fight. SYG makes the legal aftermath a bit easier.

    AS for your final comment about the Supreme Courts rulings, present and future, we open a giant can of worms regarding constitituional interpretation, a discussion not likely relevant here. Either a right is a right, or it is a privilege granted by the collective. One is not the other. Nuff said on that one.

    Returning to the original subject of this thread-

    Mas, I want you and the friends here to know that I carry hollowpoints exclusively, knowing that the Texas Rangers and Texas Department of Public Safety use them as duty ammo for the following reasons:
    1) less danger of overpenetration, 2) less danger of ricochet to innocent by standers 3) hollowpoints may require fewer shots for a “stop”, thus reducing the level of violence

    Regards
    GKT

  26. Dave the Liberal:

    I thought my comments were precisely on point. You cited Rodriguez as a reason to abandon SYG. I countered with the fact that SYG was not even relevant to the case, regardless of the huffing and puffing of the mass media. The fact that Rodriguez exercised extremely poor judgement and failed to act in a “reasonable” manner got him convicted, even with the SYG law in place. I reject any calculus that says that because it is possible to misuse liberty, that liberty should be curtained or completely denied. That is the reasoning of the police state.

    As for the discussion of “near insanity, unless you have no other choice”, you have created a straw man again. The legal standard in almost every jurisdiction is “reasonable”, ie, what would a “reasonable person, given the same known facts and circumstances, do?” Even the phrase you select “near insanity” hints at “UNREASONABLE”, someone who is insane cannot excercise reasonable judgement, and to be “nearly insane would hint at at least approaching a lack of ability to use reason and good judgement.

    It is unreasonable to use deadly force on a whim or a maybe, it is unreasonable when there are other effective solutions. The man who sticks a gun in my face and says “gimme your wallet” is threatening to kill me for the contents of my wallet. Presenting the gun and the demand, the unstated portion of the communication is ” …or I will shoot you”.

    Under such a threat, it is not insane, and entirely resonable, to defend myself with deadly force. There are 2 other alternatives,firstly to comply and hope for the best that he doesnt just shoot me for kicks after he has been given my wallet. In that circumstance, I am relying on the mercy and good will of an armed robber- a potential murderer. That is not reasonable, merely hopeful.

    Secondly, I can turn and attempt to flee; I will probably get shot in the back.

    It is unreasonable, therefor, not to fight. SYG makes the legal aftermath a bit easier.

    AS for your final comment about the Supreme Courts rulings, present and future, we open a giant can of worms regarding constitituional interpretation, a discussion not likely relevant here. Either a right is a right, or it is a privilege granted by the collective. One is not the other. Nuff said on that one.

    Returning to the original subject of this thread-

    Mas, I want you and the friends here to know that I carry hollowpoints exclusively, knowing that the Texas Rangers and Texas Department of Public Safety use them as duty ammo for the following reasons:
    1) less danger of overpenetration, 2) less danger of ricochet to innocent by standers 3) hollowpoints may require fewer shots for a “stop”, thus reducing the level of violence

    Regards
    GKT

  27. Randy – this EDC guy thanks you for making the differences between wadcutters and hollow points crystal clear. You have added even more evidence to everything I have ever read for myself, or heard from those who have had to shoot – there is absolutely no reason to load anything but hollow points IF your goal is to stop someone as quickly as possible.

  28. Randy – this EDC guy thanks you for making the differences between wadcutters and hollow points crystal clear. You have added even more evidence to everything I have ever read for myself, or heard from those who have had to shoot – there is absolutely no reason to load anything but hollow points IF your goal is to stop someone as quickly as possible.

  29. Randy, I’m with you on the cutting effect and the increased damage caused by a mushrooming projectile, but I don’t personally buy the hydrostatic shock and energy transfer theories with handgun rounds anymore (I used to, but I suspect that those were pushed by people with an agenda). Action-reaction means that the energy on the receiving end is about the same as the one you feel in the form of recoil. Many people don’t realize they’re shot or describe the effect as a punch. So there is an effect, and mostly with supersonic rounds, but it’s not the kind you count on to get an edge. That’s just my opinion after researching terminal ballistics for decades now. Handguns just deliver holes at a distance, and you want them as big, jagged and deep as possible, like good stab wounds. Rifles are another matter.

    The most potent effect of firearms has to be psychological: first, at the moment of the presentation, and second, from the report and flash. I think that people give up or drop mostly because they know they’ve been shot.

    The physiological aspects are also huge, but they’re beyond our control. A target in great shape and/or under the influence (of chemicals or powerful emotions) will surely be harder to stop than a demotivated weakling. We all also know that elastic tissue does a great job of soaking up incoming rounds.

    Personally, I plan for the worst (bad guy is huge and pissed) and hope for the best (bad guy gives up). Ballistics are helpful with the former, pyrotechnics and tactics with the latter! And the one terminal effect we can control seems greatly enhanced by hollow points. I doubt that Mas would disagree much.

  30. Randy, I’m with you on the cutting effect and the increased damage caused by a mushrooming projectile, but I don’t personally buy the hydrostatic shock and energy transfer theories with handgun rounds anymore (I used to, but I suspect that those were pushed by people with an agenda). Action-reaction means that the energy on the receiving end is about the same as the one you feel in the form of recoil. Many people don’t realize they’re shot or describe the effect as a punch. So there is an effect, and mostly with supersonic rounds, but it’s not the kind you count on to get an edge. That’s just my opinion after researching terminal ballistics for decades now. Handguns just deliver holes at a distance, and you want them as big, jagged and deep as possible, like good stab wounds. Rifles are another matter.

    The most potent effect of firearms has to be psychological: first, at the moment of the presentation, and second, from the report and flash. I think that people give up or drop mostly because they know they’ve been shot.

    The physiological aspects are also huge, but they’re beyond our control. A target in great shape and/or under the influence (of chemicals or powerful emotions) will surely be harder to stop than a demotivated weakling. We all also know that elastic tissue does a great job of soaking up incoming rounds.

    Personally, I plan for the worst (bad guy is huge and pissed) and hope for the best (bad guy gives up). Ballistics are helpful with the former, pyrotechnics and tactics with the latter! And the one terminal effect we can control seems greatly enhanced by hollow points. I doubt that Mas would disagree much.

  31. Allow me to return to the topic of this particular blog, selection of defensive ammunition, to ask a simple question. Is there any advantage to use of frangible rounds over hollow-point rounds? I was recently advised that they offer much greater safety to innocent by-standers (assuming I hit the offender), so purchased a handful at relatively great expense. Just wonder whether the advantage is as great as promised by my local gun-shop? Thanks for an interesting, if off-topic, discussion.

  32. Allow me to return to the topic of this particular blog, selection of defensive ammunition, to ask a simple question. Is there any advantage to use of frangible rounds over hollow-point rounds? I was recently advised that they offer much greater safety to innocent by-standers (assuming I hit the offender), so purchased a handful at relatively great expense. Just wonder whether the advantage is as great as promised by my local gun-shop? Thanks for an interesting, if off-topic, discussion.

  33. Lynn, the frangible rounds designed for self defense tend to have low penetration, creating shallow but wide wound channels. They appeal mostly to those who are in very densely populated environments. One problem with them is limited penetration on angles and on very large bodies; another is that they are very expensive and few can afford to run a couple of hundred rounds through them to make sure they work in the gun. The very light bullet, very high velocity combinations have a different pressure curve than the standard ammunition a semiautomatic pistol is designed to work with, and will often fail to cycle the mechanism.

    best,
    Mas

  34. Lynn, the frangible rounds designed for self defense tend to have low penetration, creating shallow but wide wound channels. They appeal mostly to those who are in very densely populated environments. One problem with them is limited penetration on angles and on very large bodies; another is that they are very expensive and few can afford to run a couple of hundred rounds through them to make sure they work in the gun. The very light bullet, very high velocity combinations have a different pressure curve than the standard ammunition a semiautomatic pistol is designed to work with, and will often fail to cycle the mechanism.

    best,
    Mas

  35. I agree with everything Mas says about hollow points- I would not carry anything else in my carry Glock 23 and all my other guns-my life and the lives of my family, friends and as a matter of fact, the lives of perfect strangers may depend on the JHP- Stay Safe and practice often!

  36. I agree with everything Mas says about hollow points- I would not carry anything else in my carry Glock 23 and all my other guns-my life and the lives of my family, friends and as a matter of fact, the lives of perfect strangers may depend on the JHP- Stay Safe and practice often!

  37. The controversy of expanding bullets v/s full metal jacket has been going on a long, long time. W.D.M. Bell about 100 years ago said “My gun has never been polluted with expanding bullets” and he shot some of the most dangerous animals on earth with full metal jacketed ammo and lived to write about it.

    There is controversy because there are scenarios where both are superior and both are inferior. One does not want over penetration so as not to kill innocent bystanders but in the infamous Miami shootout a quickly expanding light weight bullet in the 9mm which was 115 grain had to go through a felons arm before entering the body cavity which stopped the bullet just short of the heart enabling the bad guy to kill more police officers.

    On the other hand if the police had been using 125 grain 9mm bullets and the bad guy had been shot in the chest the heavier bullet might have over penetrated killing innocent bystanders.

    Another scenario is the carrying of small caliber handguns when a larger hand gun would be too big for concealment say on a very hot summer day when long clothing would be to uncomfortable to wear. So what do you use in say a 25 auto or .32 auto. Expanding bullets in those calibers have often been known not to penetrate deeply enough to hit vital organs, especially lighter than normal bullets like the newer 60 grain expanding bullets in .32 acp. So is using full metal jacketed bullets in .32 acp better. Again it depends on the angle and which part of the body the bullet hits. They too could over penetrate with full metal jacketed ammo or under penetrate with expanding bullets.

    In short there is no easy or pat answer to cover all scenarios. You makes your choices and hope for the best.

  38. The controversy of expanding bullets v/s full metal jacket has been going on a long, long time. W.D.M. Bell about 100 years ago said “My gun has never been polluted with expanding bullets” and he shot some of the most dangerous animals on earth with full metal jacketed ammo and lived to write about it.

    There is controversy because there are scenarios where both are superior and both are inferior. One does not want over penetration so as not to kill innocent bystanders but in the infamous Miami shootout a quickly expanding light weight bullet in the 9mm which was 115 grain had to go through a felons arm before entering the body cavity which stopped the bullet just short of the heart enabling the bad guy to kill more police officers.

    On the other hand if the police had been using 125 grain 9mm bullets and the bad guy had been shot in the chest the heavier bullet might have over penetrated killing innocent bystanders.

    Another scenario is the carrying of small caliber handguns when a larger hand gun would be too big for concealment say on a very hot summer day when long clothing would be to uncomfortable to wear. So what do you use in say a 25 auto or .32 auto. Expanding bullets in those calibers have often been known not to penetrate deeply enough to hit vital organs, especially lighter than normal bullets like the newer 60 grain expanding bullets in .32 acp. So is using full metal jacketed bullets in .32 acp better. Again it depends on the angle and which part of the body the bullet hits. They too could over penetrate with full metal jacketed ammo or under penetrate with expanding bullets.

    In short there is no easy or pat answer to cover all scenarios. You makes your choices and hope for the best.

  39. I would like to comment on the old, old hydrostatic shock myths. Roy Weatherby originally invented his magnum line of cartridges in conjunction with this myth and then went to Africa to prove his beliefs. Much to his surprise he found than hydrostatic shock hand little to do with killing or incapacitation. Roy found out what D.W.M. Bell knew decades earlier through real life hunting of dangerous animals and that was that shot placement no matter what type of bullet you used was the key to incapacitation providing the bullet could reach the vitals.

    Mr. Bell hated expanding bullets because they often did not penetrate deeply enough and sadly this still happens even to this very day even with more modern and better constructed expanding bullets as sometimes expanding bullets do not penetrate enough and sometimes they fail to expand at all or very little and end up over-penetrating. It all depends on many complex factors such as velocity at time of impact, the type and depth of the material the bullet must pass through, if sold objects such as bone are hit, how thick the clothing might be, and at what angle the bullet hits. I am sure I failed to mention other factors as well.

  40. I would like to comment on the old, old hydrostatic shock myths. Roy Weatherby originally invented his magnum line of cartridges in conjunction with this myth and then went to Africa to prove his beliefs. Much to his surprise he found than hydrostatic shock hand little to do with killing or incapacitation. Roy found out what D.W.M. Bell knew decades earlier through real life hunting of dangerous animals and that was that shot placement no matter what type of bullet you used was the key to incapacitation providing the bullet could reach the vitals.

    Mr. Bell hated expanding bullets because they often did not penetrate deeply enough and sadly this still happens even to this very day even with more modern and better constructed expanding bullets as sometimes expanding bullets do not penetrate enough and sometimes they fail to expand at all or very little and end up over-penetrating. It all depends on many complex factors such as velocity at time of impact, the type and depth of the material the bullet must pass through, if sold objects such as bone are hit, how thick the clothing might be, and at what angle the bullet hits. I am sure I failed to mention other factors as well.

  41. Being a combat medic, rather an infantryman with an aid bag and training, I have had the “opportunity” to be on both sides of the gun, behind it, sending “lead” down range at real people and patching some of the same people up. Bottom line, I’ve yet to see a pretty GSW, and as for you, Dave “the Pansie”, you can thank me, and those before me this Memorial day weekend for standing enough ground for those of you who couldn’t or wouldn’t . IF they would’ve retreated, they might be alive, but you wouldn’t be free!

  42. Being a combat medic, rather an infantryman with an aid bag and training, I have had the “opportunity” to be on both sides of the gun, behind it, sending “lead” down range at real people and patching some of the same people up. Bottom line, I’ve yet to see a pretty GSW, and as for you, Dave “the Pansie”, you can thank me, and those before me this Memorial day weekend for standing enough ground for those of you who couldn’t or wouldn’t . IF they would’ve retreated, they might be alive, but you wouldn’t be free!