I vow this will be the last time I reply to a discussion such as this [though that's what I promised myself the last time]...and, I am a glutton for punishment.
Let's first get a few basics out of the way: 1) every state's laws are different [e.g., duty to retreat, Castle Doctrine, etc.]; 2) every person is different; 3) various jurisdictions are more "pro-gun" then other jurisdictions [e.g., Texas vs. New York]. It seems when this topic arises, if 100 people reply, we end up with 100 differing opinions...mine is merely one more - no more or less viable then the next.
As a way of background, perhaps this would be the best time to "out" myself - I am a lawyer. Perhaps even worst, I was a trial lawyer for most of my career. HOWEVER, I offer this reply merely as an opinion and NOT legal advice.
While I do believe the U.S. jury system is not flawless, I am far too ignorant to come up with a better system of dispute resolution. Perhaps the antiquated aspect of our jury system is the concept of a jury of one's "peers". This may have worked when the U.S. Constitution was drafted and the vast part of the population were farmers or "smiths" [blacksmith, copper-smith, shoe-smith, gunsmith, etc.], but in the 21st Century I'm not sure any defendant is truly being tried by a "peer".
Now to the jury system as a whole. Let’s be honest – the vast majority of juror’s simply do not want to serve. Sure, some feel a higher level of civic duty then others; but serving is a major inconvenience and often a downright hardship. When a trial finally reaches the point when jurors are sent to deliberate and render a verdict, most jurors want to reach a decision and “get out of there” as fast as possible. The problem arises when there is a “hold-out”. As a last resort, a judge can declare a mistrial – but most are reluctant because to do so renders all prior effort wasted. So jurors are admonished and sent back for further deliberations. In more instances then I care to speculate, the way around a stalemate is for the collective jury to compromise. The result is a verdict of manslaughter when the overwhelming evidence was for murder; or, trespassing when the attempted burglar was scared off before completing his crime; or a civil judgment of $50,000, when injuries were in excess of $100,000 but the “hold-out” questions whether the defendant was even negligent in the first place. Remember, juries often do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason. In essence, a verdict is sometimes rendered, figuratively, by a “roll of the dice”.
Now ask yourself: “If, God forbid, I ever found myself being tried criminally or civilly for a defensive shooting, do I want my fate decided by a roll of the dice?” I don’t! I don’t want any juror distractions! All I want is a clean set of facts, pure and simple – I feared for my [or a loved one’s] life and I shot the attacker in self-defense. The last “red herring” I want a jury considering is the fact that the gun I used had a lightened or modified trigger. I wholeheartedly agree that this issue should be meaningless – indeed, it should not even have been presented as evidence. But I also realize that if a minority of those jurors wants to find me guilty regardless what the facts show, this might be the issue used to arrive at a “compromise”. So, for me, I keep it simple. Any CCW I carry or home defense weapon will always be to manufactures specs as to the trigger. I will tweak my range guns to my heart’s content.
Let the flaming begin!