Quote:
Huh? Let's try it this way:
[1] You are wrongfully attacked. You are innocent. The nature of the attack is such that a reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to use lethal force to prevent your otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury at the hands of your attacker.
[2] The facts are therefore such that you are justified in using lethal force in self defense against your aggressor. Your use of force is justified.
[3] To most effectively defend yourself under such circumstances, you want to stop the threat quickly. That is the essence of self defense by the use of force under circumstances in which your use of force is justified.
|
Can't someone similarly argue that a well-tuned trigger [not, necessarily a "lighter" trigger] gives you better control and aids in more accurate shot placement? Doesn't that make it just as much a properly "defensive" measure as the use of JHPs? One might argue, similarly, that a well-tuned "race" gun (when used by someone who has demonstrated some skill in its use) also allows that person to MORE EFFECITVELY defend himself or herself to stop the threat quickly. Where does that line of reasoning stop?
I appreciate your original point,
and agree, but the same kind of reasoning that defends JHPs seems to disappear when other "modifications" are discussed. Why is trigger work suspect, when JHPs aren't? Does one seem to be "cowboy" while the other isn't?
My underlying point is that the first person to fire a round isn't always doing so in a defensive mode, be he LEO or perpetrator. A JHP is also effective then, too.