Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Is the 40 S&W DEAD???

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Handguns
Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39881
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: NitroX]
      #308239 - 24/11/17 08:04 PM

But to stop that off topic discussion.

Probably better to defend oneself not with a "dead" .40 handgun, even the ratgun 9mm. Not with the illegal .45 ACP 1911. But instead with the side by side or under and over 12 gauge shotgun, one was cleaning after using it for rabbits or clays that day. Or was accessible in the safe and ammo in the locked box.

In "Oz", doesn't matter if it is .40 or 9mm, first what is close at hand. Second, what the hopefully true and legal story can be why it was at hand.

Sad state of affairs in my opinion.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Homer
.416 member


Reged: 07/04/09
Posts: 3081
Loc: Canberra, Australia
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: NitroX]
      #308272 - 25/11/17 08:22 AM

G'Day Fella's,

I think this latter part of this thread, needs its own thread.

Further to this part of this discussion, I used to work at SWW here in Canberra.
We used to have a WWII Veteran drop in once a month or so, for a look and a chat.
After a recent local attack on an individual back then, this same Veteran and I started talking about this attack.
He suggested to me and I quote:
"If you are a good person, and you didn't start the fight, it is better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."
Sounds like a good plan to me.

Avagreatweekendeh!
Homer

--------------------
"Beware the Lolly Pop of Mediocrity,
Lick it Once and You Will Suck Forever"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26994
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Homer]
      #308274 - 25/11/17 08:33 AM

U2 Homer.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.450 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 5061
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Ripp]
      #308289 - 25/11/17 05:13 PM

John, I stand by what I have said. See below a copy from each states Criminal Act/Code relating to self defence.

Different wording but all meaning the same basic thing.

What self defence means in your region

NSW

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

Queensland

When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Victoria

A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

A person carries out conduct in self-defence if:

(a) the person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and

(b) the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.

(3) This section only applies in the case of murder if the person believes that the conduct is necessary to defend the person or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury.

Western Australia

A harmful act done by a person is lawful if the act is done in self-defence if:

(a) a person unlawfully kills another person in circumstances which, but for this section, would constitute murder; and

(b) the person’s act that causes the other person’s death would be an act done in self-defence under subsection (4) but for the fact that the act is not a reasonable response by the person in the circumstances as the person believes them to be, the person is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.

A person’s harmful act is done in self-defence if:

(a) the person believes the act is necessary to defend the person or another person from a harmful act, including a harmful act that is not imminent; and

(b) the person’s harmful act is a reasonable response by the person in the circumstances as the person believes them to be; and

(c) there are reasonable grounds for those beliefs.

(5) A person’s harmful act is not done in self-defence if it is done to defend the person or another person from a harmful act that is lawful.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a harmful act is not lawful merely because the person doing it is not criminally responsible for it.

Northern Territory

A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

A person carries out conduct in self-defence only if:

(a) the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(i) to defend himself or herself or another person; or

(ii) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or

(iii) to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or

(iv) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or

(v) to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass; and

(b) the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

(3) However, the person does not carry out conduct in self-defence if:

(a) the person uses force that involves the intentional infliction of death or serious harm:

(i) to protect property; or

(ii) to prevent criminal trespass; or

(iii) to remove a person who is committing criminal trespass; or

(b) the person is responding to lawful conduct that the person knew was lawful.

Tasmania

A person is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another person, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

South Australia

It is a defence to a charge of an offence if:

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and

(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist 1 .

It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if:

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; but

(b) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist. 2

For the purposes of this section, a person acts for a "defensive purpose if the person acts:

a) in self defence or in defence of another; or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself, herself or another.

However, if a person:

(a) resists another who is purporting to exercise a power of arrest or some other power of law enforcement; or

(b) resists another who is acting in response to an unlawful act against person or property committed by the person or to which the person is a party,

the person will not be taken to be acting for a defensive purpose unless the person genuinely believes, on reasonable grounds, that the other person is acting unlawfully.

If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.


MORE:actcrimedefendhomenswnt

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Rule303]
      #308305 - 26/11/17 09:51 AM

Found the first post in this thread interesting for this subject..personally I'll take experience over conjecture every time..but then, that's just me..
As usual there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking and..
self appointed experts..gets more and more interesting

https://www.glocktalk.com//threads/9mm-4...aign=2017-11-24

Original Post;

Just killing Thanksgiving morning fellas and looking over the posts in this forum:)

FWIW: Some of you are obsessing over caliber choice to the point where it is ridiculous.

I am a retired LEO from NY. I did 6 years in patrol and 18 in SWAT. During that time I have seen for myself or was present for the aftermath of probably hundreds of shootings with all types of weapons from handguns up to 223 and 308 rifles. I remember seeing a guy hit dead center mass with a 22lr die within a minute, yet another person hit in the same place with a JHP 357mag (was still standing when I got there) tell me what happened, who shot him, etc and survive. I also saw a guy hit with a 223 go down after getting hit in the left torso...lose a lung but survived too. I remember another time when a suspect was struck in the arm with a single 9mm round die from a heart attack but yet another guy was riddled with MP5 9mm rounds died only after being shot in the head with a 308 round.

I guess that my point is this: don't obsess over which caliber is best because I don't think that it matters much because bodies do strange things. There isn't a damm bit of difference between getting shot in the same place by a 9mm, 40, or 45 round with good/modern bullets...that's for damm sure.

With that in mind, I would carry a minimum of a 38/9mm in a gun that I shoot well.

FWIW: I ONLY carry a G19 with Speer 124gr Gold Dots because it was my duty weapon and I am 1,000% sure that the G19 is the best weapon for me. I like the fact that it holds 16 rounds which I would rather have than 8 with a 45ACP. I had a G23 for a while but I sold it because I didn't like the recoil and increased muzzle blast of the 40cal for an insignificant/irrelevant increase in "stopping power."

Just my 2cents:)

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39881
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Rule303]
      #308324 - 26/11/17 11:01 PM

Quote:

John, I stand by what I have said. See below a copy from each states Criminal Act/Code relating to self defence.

Different wording but all meaning the same basic thing.

What self defence means in your region

NSW

etc



Thanks for that.

The wording for SA is what I expected it to me.

I believe I remember a state or two were adopting similar self defence provisions from the older versions.

I wonder if there are additional provisions also in existence. On the test of "reasonableness"? There used to be a test "what the common man in the street would think was resonable". Perhaps other wording but same intent. The SA wording changed that to the specific individuals belief, not "the average man". I wonder if there are other provisions, or common law case judgements which affect these paragraphs substantially?

Irrespective of BS laws, my attitude is defence oneself to the extent one feels is necessary. And worry about the BS laws later. And later keep ones mouth shut until proper legal representation.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26994
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: NitroX]
      #308341 - 27/11/17 04:07 AM

This, from the Justice Minister - Conservative Government. Wonder how this will stand up now, in court.

JUSTICE MINISTER PETER MACKAY ON SELF-DEFENCE IN CANADA
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Mailout
[mailto:Ministerial.CorrespondenceUnit-Mailout@justice.gc.ca]
Sent: February 16, 2015 8:04 AM
To: Dave Hardy
Subject: Correspondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Dear Mr. Hardy:
The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning self-defence.
I would like to assure you that the Government of Canada believes law-abiding Canadians who have been the victim of a
crime should not be re-victimized by the criminal justice system.
The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defense of a person’s home and property. A person is justified in
using reasonable force to prevent someone from unlawfully entering the home and/or removing or damaging that property
or to remove someone who is doing so. The Criminal Code also provides the basic defence of self-defence. Self-defence
allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault, which includes both actual force and an attempt or
threat to apply force against a person’s will.
Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond to force, actual or threatened, with force of
his or her own. Where these defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal, such as assault or,
in the case of self-defence, homicide. However, the force used in response to the threat must be reasonable, meaning
that excessive force or more force than necessary to prevent the threat is never allowed. The final determination of what
is reasonable will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would thus have
to be considered individually.
The police have discretion as to whether or not to recommend or lay charges, based on the evidence they obtain from the
individuals who were involved and from any witnesses. Even when a criminal charge has been laid, the individual may
still raise the defence of self-defence or defence of property during the trial, at which stage it is the judge or the jury (if
there is one) who hear all the evidence and come to determinations of fact, including whether the evidence is sufficient to
justify an acquittal on the basis of such a defence.
Nonetheless, in 2011, the Government introduced the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into force on
March 11, 2013. This act streamlined and simplified the defence of property and self-defence provisions in the
Criminal Code, as well as expanded the circumstances in which citizens’ arrests can be made.
Previously, the courts had found the laws on self-defence and defence of property to be confusing and unnecessarily
complicated due to the way these provisions were written in the Criminal Code. The clarification of the laws in this area
allows Canadians—including police, prosecutors, and the courts—to more easily understand and better apply the law, and
assists prosecutors and police in exercising their discretion not to lay a charge or proceed with a prosecution.
The Act also expanded the citizen’s arrest authority. Before these reforms were enacted, a private citizen could only
arrest an individual who was actively engaged in committing a criminal offence. This act now allows a property owner to
make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after finding someone committing a criminal offence that occurs on or in
relation to property. However, the property owner is only permitted to make a citizen’s arrest when there are reasonable
grounds to believe that it would not be feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.
The arrestor is still required to contact the police as promptly as possible after the arrest and the police will advise the
arrestor whether to continue to detain the person until police arrive. In addition, the Act made it clearer that only as much
force as is reasonably necessary could be used during a citizen’s arrest.
I note your reference to the castle doctrine. This is an American common-law principle that gives a person certain
protections against home intruders. Typically, the doctrine ensures that a person whose home is invaded may use force
against the invader without any duty to withdraw or retreat from the home before using that force.
The new Canadian legislation permits a person in peaceable possession of property, or a person assisting someone they
believe to be in peaceable possession of property, to commit a reasonable act (including the use of force) for the purpose
of protecting that property from being taken, damaged, or trespassed upon.
The use of deadly force is only reasonable in very exceptional circumstances—for example, where it is necessary to
protect a person from death or grievous bodily harm. The courts have clearly stated that deadly force is not considered
reasonable in defence of property alone. However, in most cases of home invasion, a person will likely also have a
reasonable fear for his or her own safety and that of others inside the home. Where this is so, self-defence may also be
an available defence. Neither self-defence nor defence of property requires a person to retreat before being able to use
force.
While I can provide you with general information about the state of Canadian law, as Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, I cannot provide legal advice to members of the public or comment on specific situations.
Should you require further clarification about the law, you may wish to consult a lawyer in private practice who can provide
you with a legal interpretation.
I believe that these reforms provide clear direction on the appropriate use of these defences, thereby providing Canadians
with safer and healthier communities in which to live.
I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.
Yours truly,
The Honourable Peter MacKay

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Homer
.416 member


Reged: 07/04/09
Posts: 3081
Loc: Canberra, Australia
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: DarylS]
      #308355 - 27/11/17 09:51 AM

G'Day Fella's,

Thank You for sharing Daryl, thats a good read and good to hear this from them.

Unfortunately for Aussies, a slimy political animal who was "our" prime minister (little johnny/John Winston Howard), took away our right to defend our home and property (also known as "Castle Doctrine"), back in 1996. So in essence, law abiding Australian's are now Victims in waiting.

FJWH!
Homer

--------------------
"Beware the Lolly Pop of Mediocrity,
Lick it Once and You Will Suck Forever"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.450 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 5061
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Ripp]
      #308360 - 27/11/17 01:53 PM

Ripp thanks for posting that. His experience is hard to argue against.

John, agree on the self defence.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39881
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: DarylS]
      #308361 - 27/11/17 02:05 PM

Quote:

This, from the Justice Minister - Conservative Government. Wonder how this will stand up now, in court.



It reads to me like the typical laws where innocent people defending themselves are punished in court until acquitted after a lengthy costly and streeful period of up to years ...

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: NitroX]
      #308386 - 28/11/17 02:55 AM

Interesting little chart..

Personally think the best caliber is the one you have on you when you need it..also feel there is no doubt the 40 and 45 will hit harder..but, also feel the 9mm is now a bit better with the advancement in bullet technology and powders than it once was, however those same bullets are available in 40 and 45 as well...??? Pretty sure if the 9mm was not lethal, the special forces guys would not be using it..


9_40_45One_04-1 by A Hoffart, on Flickr

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Edited by Ripp (28/11/17 02:58 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Homer
.416 member


Reged: 07/04/09
Posts: 3081
Loc: Canberra, Australia
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD??? [Re: Ripp]
      #308515 - 30/11/17 07:56 AM

G'Day Fella's,

Interesting and thank you for sharing Ripp.

Doh!
Homer

--------------------
"Beware the Lolly Pop of Mediocrity,
Lick it Once and You Will Suck Forever"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 195 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  NitroX 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 17320

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved