No "fluff and buff" required -- I hope

[DDGator]

Its a matter of preference I suppose.  But -- I don't agree that you have no reference points at night.  I suppose if you are in total darkness -- but if I am in total darkness I would be hard pressed to shoot a target I couldn't identify anyway.  There is normally some ambient light.   You might not see black sights to get a sight picture, but you can look down the barrel of the gun.

The only time I would be in even near total darkness would be in my house at night, and then I would pick up my Surefire at the same time as my handgun.

I also disagree that you can't have a justifiable civilian shoot at much more than 10 feet.  It all depends on the circumstances.  If someone points a gun at me and they are 25 feet away -- no problem.  Hell, if they are charging with a knife 25 feet away -- still no problem.

[GeorgeH]

In real life, night sights are superfluous. I've had a gun drawn against me in anger 4 times. The range was under 4 feet.

In fact, the folks at Rohrbaugh had the right idea when they designed the gun without sights, but what you need and what the public wants are not always the same.

We all want the adjustable wrench--one tool that can do it all, but that just isn't possible.

[wilco]

You are out of your MIND not to have sights. You can easily have to pull head shots, around cover,for instance. Even at a "mere"  6 ft,under lethal stress, sights are a big help for such.

You shoot somebody with a knife (not start the draw, but FIRE) at 20+ ft,  and you are at serious risk of going to prison, for "excessive use of force". You are also at risk of being sued for everything you own, and every dime you ever make, after the criminal case is over. You are likely to have to spend  $100,000 to defend yourself in court for having done such a thing. First criminal court,then civil court.

I have met Dennis Tueller, and what cops can get away with, and what you can get away with, are two very different things. If you had beaten a downed man with a club, where would you be? If you had fired 15+rds at a manwho had no weapon, was no threat to you, and killed him, where would you be, hmm? the cops who beat King, and killed Aialo, are not in prison, but a civilian sure would be. cops are defended in court by the city attorney, for free,or by a Patrolmen's Associationlawyer, also at no cost to the cop. Lawyers who are worth a hoot get about $1000 an hour, bud.

[MurrayNevada]

Wilco:
I agree with almost everything you have said EXCEPT that even very good attorneys are NOT billing at $1,000.00 per hour.  Not yet anyway!

[DDGator]

Wilco,

I am not sure if you are talking to George or me or both...

I wouldn't personally want a gun with no sights, but I don't find it crazy... depending on the intended use of the gun.

I do know my way around the legal system and I have a few comments on the rest of what you said.  You are too broadly generalizing statements about criminal or civil liability based upon distances.  Can I shoot someone in self-defense at 25 feet if they are charging me with a knife?  I sure think so.  I don't need Johnnie Cochran for that.  I have about 1-2 seconds before that knife plunges into my chest.  Anyone charging at me -- especially knowing I am pointing a gun at them -- intends to do me serious bodily harm.  I see no problem with an acquittal.  What about the gun at 25 feet?  That is a no-brainer.  You can't put a distance limitation on justified self-defense -- it all depends whether a jury of your peers think you were reasonably in fear for your life.  I think for dramatic effect I would have a witness charge at the jury box from across the courtroom waving a knife in the air.  I bet they feel my pain.

I don't believe that cops necessarily get easier treament.  Cops get some leeway for having to inject themselves into violent situations, but are generally held to a higher standard.  They are agents of the government who are supposed to know better -- not innocent civilians being beaten for sport because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The whole "jack booted thugs" anti-police mentality runs strong in America.

Civil suits are an unpleasant reality.  However -- lawyers don't pursue civil suits unless there is a deep pocket.  If you are not insured, and not particularly wealthy, there is little incentive to come after you.  The vast majority of people in this country are nearly judgment-proof for all practical purposes -- after you exclude marital assets, homestead property, retirement accounts, etc.  If you are rich enough to be a target, you have the money for the defense, and it will likely be the least of your worries.  At least you are alive to deal with it.  

Some of the best lawyers in Florida charge around $400 per hour.  The very best lawyers in America (like constitutional scholar and Professor Lawrence Tribe) may get something near $1000 per hour -- or at least say they do.

There is life after the civil suit.  How is OJ doing?

[wilco]

you THINK OJ's trial DIDN't cost  100mill $? :-) they may not BILL $1000 an hour, but they LIE a lot about how many hours were spent on what, (and on who's case) so the effect is $1000 an hour.

you may THINK that you'd have no problem with an acquittal, but plenty of guys are doing time who had a BETTER case, too. After the criminal acquittal comes the civil case.  Many a guy who THOUGHT he was judgement proof found OUT that lawyers would try his home insurance, all kinds of crap.

Just let that charging knife weilder be a minority kid, with several such shootings, or a tough political fight going on, and you become the scapegoat-testcase-sacrificial lamb.  

[GeorgeH]

Hell I'm a bargain at $180 an hour.

[GeorgeH]

If I need to use sights, I'll use my Glock 36.

My Rohrbaugh is a belly gun. A hide-away weapon.

[DDGator]

Wilco,

OJ was just an example that people can survive the civil suit and still golf the rest of their lives.  You can't compare the costs of defense of a high-profile celebrity double homicide in cold blood to a self-defense shoot.  Whatever it cost OJ, he apparently could afford it.  I doubt it was $100 million, because I don't think OJ ever had that kind of money.

Give me a documented example of someone doing hard time in prison over a shoot that was a reasonable case of self defense -- or lets just agree to disagree.  Do you read the column that appears in the American Rifleman every month detailing all the good shoots that go down in the country without prosecution?  Preaching gloom and doom about the hazzards of lawful self-defense only feed the anti-gun movement.

If my homeowners insurance provides coverage -- some might -- so what?  That just gives me a free lawyer to defend my interests up to the policy limits -- which is what they are after anyway.

I am sorry if you had a bad experience with lawyers -- I think you are really going out on a limb to say lawyers lie about their time to get a net rate of $1000 per hour.  Lawyers can't get money you don't have -- and who could afford that?  There are plenty of good lawyers who work at very reasonable rates--they have to.  Its a free market for legal services too.  The lawyers are not the problem.

And finally I gotta fall back on the old adage -- I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.  

[RJ HEDLEY]

" Preaching gloom and doom about the hazzards of lawful self-defense only feed the anti-gun movement."  DD Gator

I agree with Gator on this.  

[GeorgeH]

Ditto.

[wilco]

u really THINK that the NRA would publish cases where the use of a gun resulted in disaster?  :-) What a laugh. All you have to do to find such cases is ask Massaad Ayoob. He's documented plenty of them, and plenty more  where $50,000 plus of legal and other expenses were the ONLY reason a guy wasn't sent to prison, and many, many more where such expenses were the only reason a guy wasn't sued into financial oblivion.   You can call it "doom and gloom" if you WANT, but if you actually put a BULLET in somebody, what I said is the reality of the situation, in most people's locale. The heaviest population centers are the same as the highest crime ratios.

If just "bluffing" with the gun suffices, what need do you have of an $800 Rorbaugh, hmm?  A $200 M21 Beretta is just as effective at bluffing.  5" long, 11 ozs, 8x as cheap to practice-with, too.

[DDGator]

By popular demand, I will have the last word on this topic, and re-lock this thread.  I will leave the thread here in case there are any questions about what happened.