Official MM Firearms Thread

[D_Eclipse9916]

[
As far as your legal liability goes...honestly? Don't worry about it. yes, the dumb public may think scary black rifles are icky, but then you've already shot a guy...it's (generally speaking) an uphill battle if you've reached the place where you're defending yourself in court. Further, show me a single court case where the tools someone chose to justly defend themselves was even mentioned and I'll allow it, but you won't find one. Don't cripple your toolbox just because of what some juror might think about it.

Just a quick look (thats why I am asking! Not debating without hard evidence)
I. DEFINITION OF SELF DEFENSE
A. Self defense is a law of necessity.
B. The amount of force used in self defense must be reasonable under the circumstances.
C. Deadly force cannot be used in self defense unless there is a reasonable fear that the person is in danger of
being killed or suffering great bodily harm.
D. Deadly force is most often defined as using a deadly weapon (see section V, Malice), but hands and fists can
be deadly weapons when they are repeatedly used against an unresisting or incapacitated person.


The Jury determines what "amount of force" is reasonable. Therefore a jury of your peers (who is the public) think an AR is an Assault Rifle might be more inclined to say that was "not reasonable" vs a "shotgun/handgun". I know we tend to recklessly say "fuck that guy", but since I am thinking of this beforehand; due diligence to cover my own ass in case I have to go to the extreme?

Also C. Seems pretty vague. Using hollow points vs a regular bullet could be an argument of deadly force vs non deadly force?

Again, I am not arguing; I am genuinely trying to ask if you have asked yourself these questions and what an answer would be coming from the law. It does seem VA is very favorable to self-defense, but with something as severe as my life on the line; I take the law very seriously.