Carrying Handloads, yes or no?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Sam1911: Except that that [the statement "if the defendant used handloaded ammunition, his chances of getting test results or expert witness testimony regarding same admitted into evidence are virtually zero, due to legal precedents that address admissibility of evidence and of expert testimony'"] really hasn't held up to scrutiny, as Ken has pointed out now in two threads.
Actually, the legal principles involved have in fact "held up to scrutiny", in that they are based entirely on several appellate rulings by SCOTUS and are embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the slightly varying rules of evidence of the states. This of us who have at one time or another made a living in the field of ensuring the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence know that and know why.

It's one thing to allow evidence that does not contradict evidence presented by the state, and quite another to allow evidence that would be probative against the state's evidence. Or vice versa.
 
The legal principles indicate that it COULD work out that way. But when HAS it? How many people has this ever affected? It it a real concern that any of us need to take careful consideration of, or a theoretical concern way out at the extremes of the ragged edge of the worst of possible outcomes?

When you look at just how far down the "rabbit hole" the case has to go -- how many factors have to turn against you, from the very basic question of being arrested and prosecuted in the first place, to you needing GSR testing to prove your self-defense claim, all the way to the ruling by a judge that he's not going to allow handload testing for GSR purposes when several judges in Bias DID, then the extreme amount of warning and alarm and anxiety over the matter appears to be a tempest in a [strike]teacup[/strike] raindrop.
 
Posted by buck460XVR: ...add to that, the fact that none of the anti-handload crowd has EVER been able to give an example of where the use of handloads, in a legitimate SD scenario, has been the reason for a bad shoot conviction, tells me that zero cases outta thousands means the probability of it happening is improbable.
Very true. It is indeed.

There are reasons for that--good ones. But they do not mean that it should not be a concern. Here's why. Pardon the length of the explanation.

First, there have not been very many claims of justification in shooting incidents that have been the subject of much in the way of disputed evidence.

Of those that have, even fewer have depended in large part on forensic evidence.

And of those, still fewer have depended entirely on resolving contradictory evidence by making discrete shooting distance estimates that had to be based on GSR pattern evidence. It is one thing to say that the pattern on the shirt differed from that on the decedent's body, and quite another to make discrete distance estimates.

So far so good, and what it tells us is that when one steps out in the morning, one's chances of needing to end up having to present test evidence is far less than remote.

Also, of any disputed self defense claims that may have come up in which distance estimates based on GSR may have been needed, we are unaware of any in which the defender used hand loads. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

It will explain to any reasonable person why we have not heard of any actual cases. Of course, there are other reasons: trials are determined by the totality of the evidence; and no one has interviewed all of the jurors in all of the self defense trials in the country to determine the reasons for their findings.

But should one's acquittal happen to hinge upon distance estimates requiring GSR test evidence, one's fate might well be sealed by the question of the admissibility of said evidence. At that point we have entered the realm of conditional probability. And when it comes to risk management, that's an entirely different animal.

I do not carry hand-loads for self defense. I would not worry very much about using them indoors, however. And if I happened to arrive at the campsite equipped only with hand loads, I would not go very far out of my way to replace them. And if all I had next to the bed was a .41 Colt loaded with hand loads, I would take my chances. But it it is easy to mitigate the risk, I will do so.

There is quite a science surrounding the making of assessments--risk assessments, forecasts, performance assumptions, estimates of cost, schedule, weight, and so on--when there is a paucity of directly relevant actual data. The task is not at all like actuarial predictions, or auto safety data.

Back during the early days of my long corporate career, when we were first putting man into space, we dealt with those issues all the time.

Later, I was heavily involved in legal issues. The statement "no one has ever been convicted because..." was on a list on the wall. The title of the list was "famous last words."
 
Posted by Sam1911: The legal principles indicate that it COULD work out that way. But when HAS it? How many people has this ever affected?
See post 153.

It it a real concern that any of us need to take careful consideration of, or a theoretical concern way out at the extremes of the ragged edge of the worst of possible outcomes?
Well, if you shoot someone, and if witness testimony casts doubt upon your account, and if your case might hinge upon GSR tests of your ammunition, would you consider that "theoretical", or a risk to be considered? It's a matter of two things: conditional probably, and potential consequences.
 
Right now, based on a closer, more informed look at Bais, I'd say I'd favor my chances, actually.

But I only carry handloads sometimes, so my chances of this mattering are even slimmer! If I'm ever in a violent altercation and have to shoot someone, and if the situation is ambiguous to investigators, and if I end up arrested and tried, and if my defense is spotty enough that it hinges on my ability to prove how far away I was from the attacker when I shot, and IF I need to submit GSR test evidence... well, by then I'll probably be wishing I HAD used handloads that day just so I can find out the final answer to this question! :D
 
Posted by Sam1911: Right now, based on a closer, more informed look at Bais, I'd say I'd favor my chances, actually.
How so? The evidence that was introduced simply supported the state's case.

If I'm ever in a violent altercation and have to shoot someone, and if the situation is ambiguous to investigators, and if I end up arrested and tried, and if my defense is spotty enough that it hinges on my ability to prove how far away I was from the attacker when I shot,
That may sound far fetched, but if...
  • one witness from the neighborhood disputes your claim;
  • another one looked up after your shots;
  • the "victim" disputes your claim;
  • the weapon you thought he had did not exist;
  • the wind blew your empties away from the point from where you fired...
...those distance estimates may prove crucial. Want to take the chance?

Of course, this all leads us back to not going anywhere stupid, ADEE, and situational awareness, much more than what is in the firearm.

and IF I need to submit GSR test evidence... well, by then I'll probably be wishing I HAD used handloads that day just so I can find out the final answer to this question!
I think you can find a sufficient number of experts to answer that question now.
 
Quote:
Posted by Sam1911: Right now, based on a closer, more informed look at Bais, I'd say I'd favor my chances, actually.

How so? The evidence that was introduced simply supported the state's case.

And yet the evidence WAS introduced!
 
Last edited:
Sam, it really wouldn't matter even if you never your carried handloads.

We handload. At least I'm making an assumption all of the guys participating here handload.

If we shot someone, and that shoot looked like there was enough evidence that it might not have been justified, everything tangentially related to that gun will be taken as evidence. At least a good investigator will take it.

That'll include your factory loads you said you used. Again, how some are willing to conclude that piece of "defense-proffered evidence" will be accepted and not your handloads is another stretch I can't connect the dots on.

But all your handloading equipment, components, and handloaded ammunition will get taken into evidence. It'll be tested, and conclusions made by the ballistics lab where the ammo you said was used, was actually used.

You could very well be put in a position where the prosecutor asserts you used your handloaded ammunition, and not the factory rounds you claimed. They could also assert that since you had the means to do it, you could have pulled apart your factory loads with your equipment, altered them, and loaded them back up. The only way to determine that didn't occur is to have both your handloads, the unexpended factory ammunition, and the fired rounds and cases thoroughly examined.

So if you really want to mitigate away that risk and associated cost, sell off your equipment and stop handloading.


The science of GSR and how it behaves is quite advanced and accepted in the courts as valid. We've already seen how some pretty discrete conclusions can be made without the firearm in evidence. We can probably be assured the investigators will have our firearm for testing.

We've also seen how even better conclusions can be made about the GSR from the gun used, and just the behavior of GSR in general terms. Again, we're tallking about being able to opine, "yes, this shot was between 2 and 4 inches; this one between 4 and 12 inches; and this one somewhere under 30 inches, but greater than 12."

The handloaded ammunition you have - in the gun and at home - will be collected, analyzed, and the investigators can make certain conclusions about it whether you say a word about it or not. There are upper levels of charges we can use before the gun blows up, and lower ones where the bullet won't leave the barrel. In between them are the normal pressures which will cause the bullet, primers and cases to behave in very specific, demonstrably repeatable ways.


All that can be opined upon without our cooperation at all. And an expert can testify at trial if need be about it. Before it ever gets to trial, the ballistics lab will supply all that data to the investigators and prosecutor, and it will either corrorborate your story or undermine it.


So what we're really talking about here is a matter of how much it'll cost you to defend an assertion of an unjustified or accidental killing. If the well-developed body of work about the general nature of GSR won't come to your aid, and you're talking about a need to show that your shots weren't 6 to 12 inches away, they were really 8 - 10 inches away . . . again I'm at a loss as to imagine a scenario where that kind of precision would be required to exonerate you.


And since you possess the tools and knowledge that allow you to alter even your factory rounds, you have the risk it'll cost more to refute a claim that you altered them.
 
Posted by BullfrogKen: You could very well be put in a position where the prosecutor asserts you used your handloaded ammunition, and not the factory rounds you claimed.
If the cases were available for examination, that should be readily disproved.

They could also assert that since you had the means to do it, you could have pulled apart your factory loads with your equipment, altered them, and loaded them back up.
Again, that would leave evidence.
 
I think you can find a sufficient number of experts to answer that question now.
So far, I haven't.

There is a fair bit of print media devoted to "experts" who didn't represent the case they relied on to prove their point correctly.

And a great deal of well-worn and self-referential theorizing from (certainly very respected and loved) lawyers who seem extremely comfortable with the pat answer but not willing to take a deeper look beyond what "everyone knows" and ask themselves what highly detailed new information about real investigations and trials might say to them. :) There's a "school solution" to this, and even when it falls apart in a the real world example, it is still right...apparently.

I think the biggest frustration I have here is not that we promulgate the idea that this could happen in some 0.001% of self-defense cases, though it does not seem to have yet, ever -- but rather that we proclaim that this is an important issue meriting the same crucial level of concern as, say, what cartridge is best or what gun to carry (Pssst, that's a bit of humor right there! :)) or how to maintain situational awareness and pass/fail the victim selection process. Or any of 1,000 things that might be of import to the matter of armed self defense.

More people know "DON'T CARRY RELOADS!" than know how an affirmative defense works, or what the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws really mean, or even how to fight effectively with a handgun. And that's appalling.

IM(non-lawyerly)O. :D
 
Last edited:
buck460XVR said:
...has been the reason for a bad shoot conviction, tells me that zero cases outta thousands means the probability of it happening is improbable....
Have there really been "thousands" of cases? Remember Al Norris' research I referred to in post 105:
...He found only 12 times over a 37 year period in Idaho in which handloads were used in a defensive shooting, and of those only six were prosecuted. So how many times would we expect the particular evidentiary issue to both arise in court and result in a published judicial decision. Most trial court decisions don't result in a published opinion. ...

BullfrogKen said:
...All that can be opined upon without our cooperation at all. And an expert can testify at trial if need be about it. Before it ever gets to trial, the ballistics lab will supply all that data to the investigators and prosecutor, and it will either corrorborate your story or undermine it...
But it could happen that a defendant will want, or need, to challenge the prosecution's evidence. It might not be in a defendant's best interests to rely on the [not necessarily] tender mercies of the prosecution. It might be in a defendant's best interests to be able to make his own case, with his own witnesses, and with his own experts.

As we've seen at FirearmsID.com --

  • Without testing, based on examination of GSR, one can expect a report like

    • This:
      Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area that displays physical effects and gunshot residues consistent with a contact or near contact gunshot.

    • Or this:
      Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A heavy deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by a close range gunshot.

    • Or this:
      Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by an intermediate range gunshot.

  • With testing, one can expect a report like

    • this:
      Exhibit 1 (victim's shirt) was examined and a pattered deposit of gunshot residues was found around a bullet entrance hole located in the shirt's left shoulder. Exhibit 2 (firearm) was found to produce similar deposits of gunshot residues when fired at a target from a minimum distance of 6 inches out to a maximum distance of 18 inches.

    • But, as pointed out at FirearmsID.com (emphasis added):
      ...To get a report back saying something like that listed above the exact firearm and ammunition used in the case must be known and there must be a significant pattern of nitrite residues on the garment.

If you're the defendant, under the circumstances of your shooting someone in what you claim was self defense, which sort of expert report, one based on examination or on testing, would best serve to exonerate you? Of course, you can't know ahead of time because you're not clairvoyant (I'm sure not).

If a report based on testing could be best for you, it would serve your interests to try to head off possible dispute about what the exact ammunition used was. And for the reasons I've discussed, I've concluded for myself that using factory ammunition best serves that interest.
 
Last edited:
Sam1911 said:
...More people know "DON'T CARRY RELOADS!" than know how an affirmative defense works, or what the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws really mean, or even how to fight effectively with a handgun. And that's appalling.
I agree. Foundational understanding of basic legal concepts of use of force law, and avoiding the misunderstandings of, and exaggerated expectations for, Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is so important.
 
Posted by Sam1911: So far, I haven't [found a sufficient number of experts to answer that question now].
I was referring to your question following "IF I need to submit GSR test evidence".

The evidentiary and related expert witness testimony principles are well established.

Spats McGee explained it well in the post to which I provided a link. Frank Ettin has explained the subject several times.

Some years back, I took a several hour legal education course on the subject of the Federal Rules of Evidence as impacted by Daubert v. Merrell Dow, delivered by subject matter experts from all over the country. More importantly, I was charged with helping to develop and implement corporate procedures to comply with them. Every step of the way, our work was reviewed by professionals who charged us several hundred dollars per billable hour.

By the way, the principles are not really very dissimilar from those relating to accepted auditing practices, the adequacy of a system of internal controls, critical quality control methods, or scientific evaluation, all of which very fortunately were within the range of my professional experience.

It's really pretty basic stuff. The relevant part in a nutshell, as Spats pointed out so well, is that if you have created or tested something--anything--, or if you have at any time had the ability to affect the results (goes to custody), and if you wanted same to be admitted as evidence to support your case, that evidence would be suspect and subject to a challenge that would almost certainly succeed.

It actually can go farther than that. Under some circumstances, depending upon what is to be demonstrated, if the methods for manufacturing and measuring and testing and packaging something, and if the practices for ensuring the constant and continued secure custody of the pertinent records, are not sufficiently documented and followed, and if they do not include sufficient checks and balances, the results may subject to challenge, even if the defendant was not involved in any of the processes.

There is a lot more to it than that, but that is what is most relevant to the question at hand.

I hope that helps.
 
Kleanbore said:
Sam1911 said:
Right now, based on a closer, more informed look at Bais, I'd say I'd favor my chances <of getting testing of handloaded ammunition introduced>, actually.

How so? The evidence that was introduced simply supported the state's case.

Yeah, and look at what the NJ Ballistics Lab - a body indepedent of the prosecution and not acting under their control and direction - did.

  • They reconstructed and tested the rounds in the gun, even though they didn't match the round that killed Lise.
  • They reconstructed and tested rounds substantially similar to the one that killed Lise, which where were found nowhere else but in her head and several more in a desk up in the attic.
  • They constructed and tested a wide range of substantially dissimilar rounds found nowhere in the home in an effort to ascertain if the anemic round Bias claim he'd made and she used in her suicide could produce a mortal head wound yet leave no GSR at all.
And over the defense's objections the different judges allowed it all. And the different juries heard all those test results.

According to your understanding of how rules of evidence work, that shouldn't have been permitted. But it was.


Bias has this weird juxtaposition of a handloader not wanting his handloaded rounds tested and admitted into the trial, and the Ballistics Lab - who works for the state just like the judge - doing the testing, doing really extensive testing that took much time at great expense.


Kleanbore said:
BullfrogKen said:
You could very well be put in a position where the prosecutor asserts you used your handloaded ammunition, and not the factory rounds you claimed.

If the cases were available for examination, that should be readily disproved.


BullfrogKen said:
They could also assert that since you had the means to do it, you could have pulled apart your factory loads with your equipment, altered them, and loaded them back up.

Again, that would leave evidence.

Yup, it sure could and almost certainly would be.


But it would take a great deal of time from a competent expert and expense by the defense to do it. And since you're all about mimizing risk and all, have you thought about that one and it's cost?

I mean, if you're anything like the rest of us avid handloaders, I have many thousands of assembled rounds here at the O'Donnell castle, and many more tens of thousands worth of rounds as represented in components. It could have been any one of them that was used, right? Especially if the shooting occurred in or around my home.
 
Just in case it has not been made sufficiently clear, one need not look for rulings or opinions specifically relating to reloaded ammunition to find what needs to know about the admissibility of test data and related expert testimony. Don't look for precedent there.

The relevant evidentiary principles apply equally to the testing and quality of commercially sold items, and to a broad range of questions concerning the purity of chemicals; the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals or of insecticides, fungicides, and the like; the calibration of mass spectrometers, radar guns, laser surgery and X-ray equipment, and so forth; the accuracy and reliability of computer generated records on just about anything, including even financial transactions; DNA evidence; the list goes on and on. The same principles, and the same basic rules of evidence, apply to all.

The responsibilities and the role of the judge do vary somewhat among jurisdictions.

Now, the question of what experts can or cannot reasonably determine from GSR patterns per se, once the data are admitted, is a distinctly different and very important question, to which Ken has alluded.
 
According to your understanding of how rules of evidence work, that shouldn't have been permitted.
Not true. The evidence that Bias sought to introduce, which had been in his custody, was not introduced. The evidence introduced by the state, and admitted by the judge, was not something that would have exonerated Bias, and its reliability was really not in serious question.

I have not read enough about the case to know whether the independence of the crime lab influenced the judge's decision regarding admissibility. It seems reasonable that it might have.

I do doubt whether it was really probative, though it would have supported my preconceptions had I been a juror.
 
Frank Ettin said:
BullfrogKen said:
...All that can be opined upon without our cooperation at all. And an expert can testify at trial if need be about it. Before it ever gets to trial, the ballistics lab will supply all that data to the investigators and prosecutor, and it will either corrorborate your story or undermine it...

But it could happen that a defendant will want, or need, to challenge the prosecution's evidence. It might not be in a defendant's best interests to rely on the [not necessarily] tender mercies of the prosecution. It might be in a defendant's best interests to be able to make his own case, with his own witnesses, and with his own experts.

State's evidence. You mean the state's evidence, right? The prosecution isn't collecting the evidence. Functions like a ballistics lab and the medical examiner don't work for the prosecution. I thought we'd covered that before.


Now you can certainly find cause to undermine the competency of that independent body, or find a need to conduct an exam they failed or chose not to perform. But the work done on the evidence, the bench notes, and the reports they produce go out to both parties if the prosecution decides to build a case.


The defense is not at the mercy of the prosecution. They may be at the mercy of the state's medical examiner and ballistic experts, but those offices really strive to perform a really damn good job. They strive for impartiality, excellence, and thoroughness. They all know the risks that come with violating that independence and performing substandard work. It means all the cases they've ever built using their work can come under review and risk being re-tried.


Unlike the crap you see on t.v., the prosecutor is not all in their space directing them where to look, what to do, and what not to do. Also unlike what you see on t.v., sometimes these labs are staffed by state policemen. The last thing they want to see is someone their work helped convict in a murder 20 years ago get re-tried and set free because someone didn't do a proper job in an unrelated case 4 years ago and the work products of their offices become discredited when it was discovered.
 
Frank Ettin said:
If you're the defendant, under the circumstances of your shooting someone in what you claim was self defense, which sort of expert report, one based on examination or on testing, would best serve to exonerate you? Of course, you can't know ahead of time because you're not clairvoyant (I'm sure not).

If a report based on testing could be best for you, it would serve your interests to try to head off possible dispute about what the exact ammunition used was. And for the reasons I've discussed, I've concluded for myself that using factory ammunition best serves that interest.

Again, we're talking about the difference between a report that even without the gun might say, "the shot - or series of shots - took place at a distance of greater than 12 inches, but less than 30", or one that says it took place between 18 and 24 inches.

We're talking within arm's length here man.


Again, this is what you've concluded for yourself. You want that warm and fuzzy feeling. But simply because that's your choice, you're doing the argument and everyone else a disservice when you use your choice to argue your position and ignore or dismiss what the science can do as "not good enough for you". You want more. I get that. Fine.

But that's not the issue.

The issue really is the science, and it's a lot more evolved than you'll admit. And because it is, the risk of handloads in a courtroom are a whole lot less than the boogeyman you make them out to be.
 
"Hand" Loads?

One other key point: we keep referring to this subject as one pertaining to "hand loads". That may not be serving us well.

The assembly, or "loading", of ammunition components can be done on highly automated production lines, semi-automatic equipment, turret presses, or single die presses. I started out with a Lyman 310 tool that looked something like a nutcracker.

None of that is really very relevant when it comes to the rules of evidence. What is relevant includes the following: (1) who loaded it, where, and how; (2) what in-process measurements were taken and how they were recorded and by whom; (3) how and by whom those records were stored; and (4) how the product was packaged.

If the "who" in any of those facets happens to be one of the parties in a criminal or a civil trial, admissibility is most probably a non starter.

Whether or not a state crime lab would be considered a party in a trial would have to be determined on a case by case basis.

I have shot remanufactured .45ACP target ammo assembled by someone else at the range. I don't know enough about it to be able to assess the legal risk of using it for defense. I would really prefer ammo from an ISO certified concern, loaded on well-calibrated equipment by persons with adequate separation of duties, and made from virgin brass without marks from de-capping, re-sizing, re-seating, or previous feeding, extraction, and ejection. That's a personal preference.

Of course, my first preference, by far, is to not ever have to shoot anyone in the first place.
 
Last edited:
BullfrogKen said:
State's evidence. You mean the state's evidence, right? The prosecution isn't collecting the evidence. Functions like a ballistics lab and the medical examiner don't work for the prosecution. I thought we'd covered that before.
Yes we have, and I had pointed out that in they can be run by law enforcement:
...Who it works for will probably vary State by State.

In California, in the larger counties the county Sheriff's Department runs the county crime lab to provide services within that county. Some police departments also run their own forensic laboratories. And there's a state crime lab for cities and counties which don't have their own. The state crime lab is run by the Attorney General's Office....

In Kentucky, the State Forensic Laboratory is run by the Kentucky State Police.

In New Jersey, forensic services are provided by a section of the New Jersey State Police Investigation Branch.

In Washington State:
The State Patrol's Forensic Laboratory Services provide a wide range of forensic science expertise to city, county, and state law enforcement officers, medical examiners and coroners, assisting agencies at crime scenes, preparing evidence for trial, and providing expert testimony....

In New Hampshire:
The State Police Forensic Laboratory is the sole provider of traditional forensic laboratory services in New Hampshire. The Forensic Laboratory routinely receives and analyzes evidence from over 220 city and town police departments, nine state law enforcement agencies including the State Police, ten county sheriffs departments, numerous city and town fire departments, and, on occasion, federal law enforcement agencies conducting criminal investigations in the state....

In Vermont:
The VFL is the only forensic laboratory in the State of Vermont and provides services to the entire criminal justice system....

In Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Forensic Services is an ASCLD-LAB - International accredited laboratory system. The primary mission of our Bureau is to serve the criminal justice community and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by providing the highest quality scientific, technical and investigative support to law enforcement agencies for the processing of crime-related evidence....

These are not independent third parties. These are parts of police agencies serving the criminal justice system. The opinions of police forensic laboratories have been subject to dispute in criminal litigation.

BullfrogKen said:
...sometimes these labs are staffed by state policemen. They last thing they want to see is someone their work helped convict in a murder 20 years ago get re-tried and set free because someone didn't do a proper job in an unrelated case 4 years ago...
Putting aside whether that can be said categorically, state forensic laboratories have not been free of criticism -- see here and here.

BullfrogKen said:
...Again, we're talking about the difference between a report that even without the gun might say, "the shot - or series of shots - took place at a distance of greater than 12 inches, but less than 30", or one that says it took place between 18 and 24 inches.

We're talking within arm's length here man...
There's no need to paraphrase the difference. Above I quoted the website exactly. And there's no way to know ahead of time whether that difference will matter. Maybe it will, and maybe it won't.

BullfrogKen said:
...The issue really is the science, and it's a lot more evolved than you'll admit....
The issue is also the admissibility of evidence, which is more involved than you'll admit.

BullfrogKen said:
...But simply because that's your choice, you're doing the argument and everyone else a disservice when you use your choice to argue your position and ignore or dismiss what the science can do as "not good enough for you"....
Okay, so what I've been doing is explaining fully why I have made the choice I have made, and why the counterarguments you and others have brought up haven't been sufficient to change my mind about my choice.

BullfrogKen said:
...the risk of handloads in a courtroom are a whole lot less than the boogeyman you make them out to be.
I guess it comes down to a disagreement about whether it's enough of a "boogeyman" to affect one's choice. It is enough to affect my choice. If it's not enough to affect your choice, that's fine with.
 
Frank Ettin said:
If it's not enough to affect your choice, that's fine with.

Hey like I told you before, it doesn't matter to me. I don't think I've ever once said whether I stuff handloads in my ready-guns or factory loads.


All I'm interested in is an honest, open, conversation about the topic that doesn't contain condescention, references to falsehoods, and fearmongering over vagaries.


I've got a lawn to go mow. I'll come back after it's done with some fresh data and viewpoints.
 
BullfrogKen said:
...fearmongering over vagaries.
It still seems to be coming down to value judgments. What may be "fear-mongering" to some could well be "reasonable avoidance of unpredictable risks" to me. What might be "vagaries" to some could well be established and well understood legal principles to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top