I just saw it stated on another forum in a recent thread... "in many cases, engaging a target at 25 yards would leave you with 'splainin to do." "Sure 25 is fun, but I’ll argue it’s not practical for EDC situations as a civilian." "As has been said, if you shoot someone who is 75' away you may have a very tough time explaining how you felt you were at risk of severe bodily harm or death." Those are actual quotes by gun owners on a different firearms forum, though I've seen similar statements here. I think they are ridiculous and without merit. They, and others with the same line of thinking, think that someone threatening you with a gun or shooting at you 75' away is somehow too far away to be a threat and defending yourself at that distance is somehow not legal or not warranted. Pretty sure I can hit someone with a rock at 75' away. I think the argument boils down to whether or not you have a legal justification to self-defense, which usually boils down to would a reasonable person in the same situation feel their life was in danger. I can make head shots at 75' with a stock Glock 19 in a stressful match, so pretty sure someone pointing a gun at me 75' away is a valid case for self-defense. Since this is the legal forum, has there been a case in which someone being shot at from a further distance returned fire and it was ruled not a good shoot? Is there any legal standard that would put 75' as too far to defend yourself?