What should you not use in self defense?

[MTechnik]

Just to start building the list -

Rock Salt - it'll just piss them off
Your own reloads - I've heard this a lot. Is this because of loading consistency? Or because making your own man killing bullets is less evil than buying them at the store?
a fully automatic weapon - I read about a ruger employee servicing an AC556 that had to use it, and the DA went ape shit over it.
"less than lethal" rounds (bean bag shotgun rounds) - they're not un-lethal, and if you had to use something potentially lethal, why didn't you?

What else should be added or debunked and removed from the list?

And yes, if your life is in danger, and ALL you have is a Glock 18 with reloads - by all means, use it.

[David]

What should you not use in self defense?

• Poor judgment
  
• Any language which could be construed as "Hate Speech"
  
• Lines from movies
  
• A CCW badge
  
• A weak caliber
  
• Celebrating (Such as screaming "GET SUM!" while they're twitching on the ground)

[ToddG]

Rock Salt - it'll just piss them off

The primary issue is that it's not even marginally effective, yet will be considered lethal force. If you're justified in using lethal force, don't throw salt.

Your own reloads - I've heard this a lot. Is this because of loading consistency? Or because making your own man killing bullets is less evil than buying them at the store?

The common argument against reloads is that it makes you look evil and/or can't be "ballistically compared" after a fight. Then someone finds one or two bizarre outlier cases and uses them as an example of this so-called rule.

The reality is that almost all self defense claims are very straightforward and things like weapon selection, ammo selection, what you're wearing, etc. will never be relevant or admissible. CSI:Toledo aside, the odds you'll need to worry about ballistic trajectories and GSR are practically nil.

The main reason to choose factory ammunition over reloads is because factory ammo, especially premium JHP ammo from major manufacturers (ATK/Federal/Speer, Remington, and Winchester), is:

• using the latest, most tested, most successful JHP technology
• quality control tested with equipment that no home loader could possibly hope to replicate
• built with features like case mouth sealant and low flash powders that are unavailable or beyond the capability of most handloaders.

a fully automatic weapon

Same as above, except that there's a more obvious tug at the heart strings of a jury when they're told you're using a machine gun... a highly regulated machine gun that most people aren't even allowed to own because of their tremendous destructive potential. Of course, the flipside to that is if you own an NFA weapon, you can demonstrate that you've been fully vetted by ATF and -- unlike most gun owners in America -- you have explicit approval from ATF to own such a device.

[LittleLebowski]

I would not use reloads in self defense. Todd covered most of the reasons for using quality factory SD rounds above.

[jslaker]

The main reason to choose factory ammunition over reloads is because factory ammo, especially premium JHP ammo from major manufacturers (ATK/Federal/Speer, Remington, and Winchester), is:

• using the latest, most tested, most successful JHP technology
• quality control tested with equipment that no home loader could possibly hope to replicate
• built with features like case mouth sealant and low flash powders that are unavailable or beyond the capability of most handloaders.

I would add to this that most modern JHPs are designed to perform at their best within a particular velocity envelope. Push them too fast and they're less likely to expand optimally -- petals start to peel back or break off. So reloading doesn't really gain you any advantages since quality factory JHPs will be loaded in their optimal range to begin with.

[MTechnik]

Adding (at least in urban or suburban areas): warning shots. Some places say you can't shoot at all (unless you are actively defending yourself), making you a criminal.

[jslaker]

Adding (at least in urban or suburban areas): warning shots. Some places say you can't shoot at all (unless you are actively defending yourself), making you a criminal.

Also: Hollywood notions of shooting at the legs to disable, etc.

Generally if someone seriously suggests this it says to me that A. they don't realize how difficult hitting a target like moving human legs really is and/or B. they haven't fully accepted the gravity of using a firearm on a human being and haven't completely accepted that all gunshot wounds have a significant probability of being lethal.

B is actually worse, IMO, since it increases the likelihood of that person using a firearm in a situation that might not warrant it.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

RE: Reloads - They don't matter in and of themselves.

If the shooting is justified - Grade A 100% Kosher, it doesn't matter what was used.

If the shooting isn't that clean, and other factors are in play, like it was a former domestic partner or your significant other's ex/baby-daddy or someone who you owe money to or owes you money...or if the guy turned as you were shooting him resulting in entry wounds in the back, or you fucked up and made a statement which confused the police...the use of handloads adds to the sum of errors in the situation.

Your actions are the use of force - deadly force - by one citizen against another. It's going to be looked at, poked, prodded and examined by people who may or may not agree with your actions, and possibly have to be reviewed by more than one government office, then maybe by a jury if it goes that far.

It's an additional factor that someone need to look at, then wonder how if fits into the event, if it fits in at all.

The reason to not use handloads is simple - simplicity itself.

The situation will be confused enough. Don't add another factor, even if it's something people feel can be explained.

An issue you don't have to deal with...is an issue you don't have to deal with, regardless if it can be justified, explained or rationalized.

[MTechnik]

Also: Hollywood notions of shooting at the legs to disable, etc.

Generally if someone seriously suggests this it says to me that A. they don't realize how difficult hitting a target like moving human legs really is and/or B. they haven't fully accepted the gravity of using a firearm on a human being and haven't completely accepted that all gunshot wounds have a significant probability of being lethal.

B is actually worse, IMO, since it increases the likelihood of that person using a firearm in a situation that might not warrant it.

Even then, what about ricochets? It's a "perfect" angle, aiming towards knees and feet.

[jar]

The story you're thinking of with the AC556 was Gary Fadden: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...8/ai_112685749 Gary was a salesman for H&K.