[bastiat]

I see the following claims made all the time at this and various other boards without ever seeing any backing information:

1. If you reload, don't use your reloads in your defensive / carry weapon or you'll be prosecuted by the DA / sued by your attacker because you used your own reloads. (Maybe they'll sue because your reloads were extr-ee powerful like.)

2. Don't use an AR or AK to defend yourself or you'll be prosecuted by the DA / sued by your attacker because of your choice of weapon. (So using a more politically correct gun in the same caliber will convince a slimy trial lawyer that he shouldn't try to bleed you dry. Or a politically motivated DA will say 'if only he had used an AR-15 instead of a mini-14, I could have brought charges against him! My career is ruined!'.)

The problem is I've never once seen any backing information posted to support these claims. No links to stories, cases, etc. Just armchair legal opinion that seems to be based on nothing more than urban legend.

Now I know people have been sued by their attackers, and people have been prosecuted for self defense. That's not the point here. The point is that even though no one can prove the choice of an otherwise legal defensive weapon or ammo has never been used as a determining factor in a civil or criminal self defense case, people still make the claim. And this isn't about performace issues like overpenetration or the reliability of your reloads, either.

Making claims like this doesn't help anyone any more than a gunshop commando claiming that a .45 acp round will knock a man clean off his feet if you hit him in the wrist. In fact, it may cause more harm than good.

So why do people make these types of claims???