JRSpicer426 said:
...If the trigger job helps you shoot better, it made the gun safer in your hands...
Is it really going to? In that case of taking a 5.5 pound standard Glock trigger down to 3.5 pounds, you'll get a lot of debate on the point, especially from guys like the LEO/trainer/armorer I mentioned earlier.
Yes, if you're using a DA revolver with a gritty 15 pound trigger, smoothing it out and taking down to 10 pounds or so makes a lot of sense. You will manage it much better. And guys like the LEO/trainer/armorer I mentioned earlier will support the change. But a 3.5 pound Glock trigger in a high stress situation like a violent engagement is another matter.
Is one saying that he can't shoot a Glock with a standard trigger accurately? Maybe more training or practice is in order. And if one insists on a 3.5 trigger on his carry Glock, how much training and experience does he have and will he get managing the gun under stress?
Kenneth said:
...I cant recall any recent civilian defense shootings, or bystander witnessing a crime shootings, in which the shooter has been prosecuted...
How about --
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought it was a "good shoot." He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma thought it was a good shoot. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought it was a good shot. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
It's probably true that most of the time justification will be fairly apparent and the matter will be quickly cleared up favorably for the defender. But there are no guarantees, and there's no way to know if your self defense encounter will work out so neatly.
The relatively small number of self defense gun uses that get to court probably is the reason there are few, or no, cases readily found in which people used modified guns or handloaded ammunition. Most people who have guns for self defense are probably not enthusiasts. They have box stock guns and use factory ammunition.
TexasRifleman said:
...almost anything could happen if a prosecutor decided to go off the deep end...
[1] If one is on trial following his use of a gun in what he claims was self defense, there is disagreement on whether his use of lethal force was justified. The investigation of the incident did not establish with sufficient clarity that his use of lethal force was justified. Now it will be up to the defender to affirmatively establish a prima facie case that his use of lethal force satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.
[2] In that case, the prosecutor will use whatever is available to secure a conviction.
[3] That could include your training (or lack of training), the ammunition you used, the type of gun you used, modifications made to the gun, etc.
[4] Some things might have a predictable downside but also have an upside in the street and can be managed in court, e. g., the use of JHP ammunition or having sought out training.
[5] Some things might have a predictable downside with no real upside, like a hair trigger (learn to shoot well with a good service grade trigger).
If you really want to stack the deck against yourself, be my guest. Personally, I try to stack the deck in my favor.
(this may have come as a shock to you. Sorry about not warning you to sit down first)
