[jbglock]

Originally Posted by M 7

It'd be nice if everyone was guaranteed that treatment and outcome, but in many parts of the country, an honest, rational environment is not what you, as someone who has fired a gun in self-defense, will experience. Instead, every attempt will be made to villify and embarss you and the prosecution will use everything they can to convince the jury that you are a loon who thinks zombies exist 'cause you used zombie killin' ammo. Juries tend to be poorly informed about guns and ammo, not to mention they are often "anti-gun", and the prosecution will exploit that if they can.

I'll stick with my plain-jane HSTs and let my attorney about more important stuff while he is defending me.

I agree with this. I see nothing wrong in having it for novelty or fun on the range but I'd never use it any of my carry guns.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by jbglock

I agree with this. I see nothing wrong in having it for novelty or fun on the range but I'd never use it any of my carry guns.

Yeah, it would go great with those 3D Zombie targets that ooze "blood" when you shoot 'em up.

[Theronius]

Originally Posted by JW1178

Imagine the prosecutor trying to get a case based upon the fact you used "zombiemax" ammo. "Your honor and jury, this stuff was excessive, it was for killing zombies" He/she would look like a total nut. I guess Winchester Silvertips are Vampire ammo?

You'd get off on a technicality, because everyone knows Silvertips are werewolf-shootin' rounds!!!

[JW1178]

So if I shot someone with the zombie max ammo and they die, wouldn't that prove they are a zombie? Since a zombie is already dead, they can't charger with murder.

Kind of like the mid evil days, if they accused someone of being a witch, they would burn you at the stake and if you burned that proved you were a witch. They didn't have any of this high tech equipment but by golly, everyone they accused turned out to be guilty.

[unit1069]

Hornady is just maximizing profits by tweaking one of its standard JHP self-defense rounds, packaging it in a different box, and selling it at a higher price. Yes, it's a novelty but the product itself is part of Hornady's top line.

Remington repackaged it's Golden Saber with a new name and is charging $5/box more for the same Golden Saber round.

[SGT278ACR]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Wow OP, welcome to 4 months ago.

And yea, I bought a box in 9mm... Not to use, or carry, but just to say I have a box of "zombie ammo"

20$ well spent IMO.

Better for you to be out $20 for a cartoon comic printed box than me. Yep, about 4 months too late, but I think I was doing more important things at the time like scratching my ass. To each his own. Glad you like it.

[.50 cal]

I have some of the 12 gauge Zmax and wouldn't hesitate to use it in defense if I am out of standard buckshot, If I fear for my life I won't worry about convincing a jury that a reasonable person in my shoes wouldn't have done the same, any decent lawyer will show ammo choice shouldn't be a deciding factor in my fait

[jbglock]

People in this forum really should start going to court some. Honestly I'd think the same as many of you if I didn't have to go so much because of my job and didn't get to talk to juries afterwards (win or lose) to see what influenced them. Let's not forget that many times a lot of leeway is given in the closing arguments. Things that were not introduced as fact are often introduced in an underhanded way right then. Things that we as knowledgeable enthusiasts consider silly can easily become one of many factors that will influence the jury. I'm even sitting here now wondering if any Zombie .22lr ammo is out there for my child to use for fun when he is shooting Zombie targets. Still I'd never put any in a gun I have on my side for self defense and the argument that one of you might run out of ammo and have to use your Zombie ammo is just silly. Who can't afford the cheaper ammo yet stocks up on the Zombie novelty stuff?

[michael_b]

Originally Posted by jbglock

People in this forum really should start going to court some. Honestly I'd think the same as many of you if I didn't have to go so much because of my job and didn't get to talk to juries afterwards (win or lose) to see what influenced them. Let's not forget that many times a lot of leeway is given in the closing arguments. Things that were not introduced as fact are often introduced in an underhanded way right then. Things that we as knowledgeable enthusiasts consider silly can easily become one of many factors that will influence the jury. I'm even sitting here now wondering if any Zombie .22lr ammo is out there for my child to use for fun when he is shooting Zombie targets. Still I'd never put any in a gun I have on my side for self defense and the argument that one of you might run out of ammo and have to use your Zombie ammo is just silly. Who can't afford the cheaper ammo yet stocks up on the Zombie novelty stuff?

I would tend to agree especially since the Z-Max ammo is marked in bold letters 'NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS'( something to that effect I can't remember exactly).

I bet that would cause a ruckus.

[Marred]

Rick, put it this way:

Bear in mind that the most classic "good shoot" becomes a "questionable shoot" as soon as the "question" is raised in the form of a lawsuit, no matter how unmeritorious that lawsuit may be.

You are on the jury. The question is whether the shooter is reckless or negligent. You find out he used "Zombie ammo," whose own manufacturer makes it clear is a novelty product. How serious and responsible does that make the shooter look to you, the juror?

best,
Mas

Mas doesn't think it's a good idea either.

[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by M 7

Too controversial for legitimate SD use. (try 'splainin' why you used ammo designed to "kill" the "undead" to the jury without looking like a "nut")

I don't understand this argument. If it's the same as Critical Defense, I would think a competent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that, and a simple explanation of "it was (less expensive/more available) than identical ammo of a different color" should be sufficient.

[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by blacksheep40

another thing that kills me is the people in yt videos showing the pistol is unloaded 9000 times... I'm not in the room for your dumb ass to shoot me, so I dont care if your gun is unloaded...

I'm mostly OK with that. Nothing wrong with reinforcing good safe habits.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

I don't understand this argument. If it's the same as Critical Defense, I would think a competent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that, and a simple explanation of "it was (less expensive/more available) than identical ammo of a different color" should be sufficient.

Read the thread. It's been discussed.

[jbglock]

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

I don't understand this argument. If it's the same as Critical Defense, I would think a competent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that, and a simple explanation of "it was (less expensive/more available) than identical ammo of a different color" should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by jbglock

People in this forum really should start going to court some. Honestly I'd think the same as many of you if I didn't have to go so much because of my job and didn't get to talk to juries afterwards (win or lose) to see what influenced them. Let's not forget that many times a lot of leeway is given in the closing arguments. Things that were not introduced as fact are often introduced in an underhanded way right then. Things that we as knowledgeable enthusiasts consider silly can easily become one of many factors that will influence the jury. I'm even sitting here now wondering if any Zombie .22lr ammo is out there for my child to use for fun when he is shooting Zombie targets. Still I'd never put any in a gun I have on my side for self defense and the argument that one of you might run out of ammo and have to use your Zombie ammo is just silly. Who can't afford the cheaper ammo yet stocks up on the Zombie novelty stuff?

No offense but a good lawyer could make it an issue easily. Whether the jury buys it or not is another story. You can't depend on having a jury full of people sympathetic towards our rights.

[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by M 7

Read the thread. It's been discussed.

I did read the thread. That doesn't mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn. It would be nice if there were some actual cases where this issue came up.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

I don't understand this argument.[/COLOR] If it's the same as Critical Defense, I would think a competent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that, and a simple explanation of "it was (less expensive/more available) than identical ammo of a different color" should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by M 7

Read the thread. It's been discussed.

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

I did read the thread. That doesn't mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn. It would be nice if there were some actual cases where this issue came up.

In your first post you stated, "I don't understand this argument." and then you stated, "That doesn't mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn."

There's a big difference between "not understanding" and "not agreeing".

If you don't understand, please feel free to read the thread. It's been discussed.

If you don't agree with me, well, that's fine, too. I never said that you had to.

You can also refer to post #35 and get the perspective of an expert (M. Ayoob) on the matter.

[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by M 7

In your first post you stated, "I don't understand this argument." and then you stated, "That doesn't mean I agree with all the conclusions drawn."

There's a big difference between "not understanding" and "not agreeing".

If you don't understand, please feel free to read the thread. It's been discussed.

If you don't agree with me, well, that's fine, too. I never said that you had to.

Or you can see post #35 and get the perspective of an expert (M. Ayoob) on the matter.

Ah, well, I guess I had just hoped that the rest of my post would have led to a different reading of "understand" than the literal "I am ignorant of the issue".

Like I said, I'd like to see if there have been any actually cases where this has been an issue or if it's just a theoretical discussion.

[M 7]

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

Ah, well, I guess I had just hoped that the rest of my post would have led to a different reading of "understand" than the literal "I am ignorant of the issue".

Like I said, I'd like to see if there have been any actually cases where this has been an issue or if it's just a theoretical discussion.

No problem.

Since I don't carry the stuff, I've never had the desire to go looking for a case involving the issue, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't mind seeing an example either.

Maybe someone has one- you could also go hit Mas' subforum and ask him.

[TattooedGlock]

They're legit SD rounds. If you make a legal justified SD shooting, the bullet you use matters not. Just like if you have a skull tattoo. If however you make an unjustified shot, all things will come out in the insuing dog and pony show.

[WoodenPlank]

Originally Posted by TattooedGlock

They're legit SD rounds. If you make a legal justified SD shooting, the bullet you use matters not. Just like if you have a skull tattoo. If however you make an unjustified shot, all things will come out in the insuing dog and pony show.

Tell that to Harold Fish. An unscrupulous prosecutor can and will use anything against you that they can - Punisher logo grips, "aggressive" looking tattoos, an "overly powerful" caliber, etc. Anything they can do to make you look like an unjustified nutjob will get pulled out in court if the DA wants to make an example of you, build a name from putting a "homicidal maniac looking for an excuse to kill someone," or myriad other reasons to put you behind bars.

[WinterWizard]

The irony is that for zombies you don't want a hollow point - you want fmj for skull piercing. So if a company really wanted to make zombie novelty ammo, they should make some kind of +P FMJ with a pronounced pointy nose.

[.50 cal]

Originally Posted by WinterWizard

The irony is that for zombies you don't want a hollow point - you want fmj for skull piercing. So if a company really wanted to make zombie novelty ammo, they should make some kind of +P FMJ with a pronounced pointy nose.

My 12 gauge zMax should take their heads off, not worried about penetration, it would actually take a Zombie apocalypse for me to empty the ammo cabinet and resort to using this ammo

[avenues165]

Originally Posted by WinterWizard

The irony is that for zombies you don't want a hollow point - you want fmj for skull piercing. So if a company really wanted to make zombie novelty ammo, they should make some kind of +P FMJ with a pronounced pointy nose.

I disagree with your choice of a FMJ. I think the JHP would cause more head damage and therefore would be more effective against a zombie. However, for zombie protection, you really need to be using a shotgun, blows heads apart!!

Now if Zombies have a tougher skull than a human then a FMJ might make sense. Does anyone know if a zombie has a thicker skull than us humans?

[jbglock]

Originally Posted by TattooedGlock

They're legit SD rounds. If you make a legal justified SD shooting, the bullet you use matters not. Just like if you have a skull tattoo. If however you make an unjustified shot, all things will come out in the insuing dog and pony show.

Just because it should be legally justified doesn't mean that is what the police, DA, or family will see it that way.

[eracer]

Why is 'Zombie Max' ammo any more ridiculous than 'Black Talon', 'Varmint Grenade', or 'Ted Nugent' ammo? Or are those marketing labels somehow less deserving of disdain because they don't cash in on the Zombie craze?