Ammo For Sale

« « Breaking Gun News | Home | Quote of the Day » »

Defensive Gun Use

The big news here is not that someone used a gun to save their life, that happens all the time. The big news is that a Taurus Judge actually stopped someone.

34 Responses to “Defensive Gun Use”

  1. ViolentIndifference Says:

    Did they hit them with it?

  2. cayton Says:

    Can I get some links from talking about the ineffectiveness of the Judges? I’ve heard they are bad, but never any specific reasons.

  3. SayUncle Says:


  4. Weer'd Beard Says:

    According to the article they still haven’t found the perp who was shot. The “one shot stop” sounds 100% voluntary.

  5. 3_gun Says:

    Having a gun saved her, lucky for her just the fear of being shot was enough…this time. Both robbers ran off. Doesn’t sound like a stop to me. Other than 45 Colt I’ve yet to see a load that comes close to meeting the minimum performance standards for self defense loads in a Judge. A #12 bird shot load from this pistol might not even make it through a hoodie.

  6. Justin Buist Says:

    “The “one shot stop” sounds 100% voluntary.”

    Yep. I’m glad the woman is OK, but she might want to reconsider her choice in ammunition.

  7. Miguel Says:

    We do not aim to kill, we aim to stop the attack. In this particular case, The Judge did its job.

  8. cayton Says:

    Perfect, thank you.

  9. aeronathan Says:

    I hate to count on a “mental” stop but sometimes it works. There are more than a few people who will think to themselves “oh god I’ve been shot” and then just lie down to die….

  10. KentuckyCountryboy Says:

    Why don’t we aim to kill? A kill is the only definite way to stop an attack. If they attack you, they are willing to and deserve to die. You killing them instead of simply wounding them could save someone else’s life.

  11. SayUncle Says:

    KentuckyCountryboy, I hope you never say that on the stand.

  12. Jake Says:

    KentuckyCountryboy: Basically, “Shoot to stop” specifically implies that if the goblin surrenders, or runs away, then you’re done. “Shoot to kill” implies that you will continue shooting even if the goblin surrenders or tries to run.

    It’s a difference in semantics, mainly, but it’s one that can turn around and bite you if you are ever actually involved in a defensive shooting. Prosecutors, goblins, and goblins’ families have all been known to try and use someone’s use of the phrase “shoot to kill” to punish the victim. Making a point of saying “shoot to stop” avoids that potential trap.

  13. Beaumont Says:

    Point well taken, Unc. He shouldn’t say that while connected in any way to our injustice system (no, not a typo).

    That doesn’t make it any less true.

  14. Wolfwood Says:

    Well, you also don’t have the right to “shoot to kill” because your right is that of self-defense, not of enforcing justice. If the use of deadly force, including killing, is your only option, then it’s totally okay, but the killing is incidental to the stopping, not the purpose of your shooting.

  15. Laurence Blount Says:

    @Wolfwood. Someone stayed away in Ethics Class when they went over the Principle of Double Effect. Nicely put.

  16. Laurence Blount Says:

    Oops… Stayed AWAKE! Geez. I need to go back to work and make my Type-os there.

  17. mariner Says:


    In shooting to stop you aim the firearm exactly the same way as if you were shooting to kill.

    The difference is that in shooting to stop, you stop shooting when the attacker stops attacking. In shooting to kill you keep shooting after the attacker stops attacking.

    The first is self-defense. The second, according to the law in most states, is murder.

  18. Bryan S. Says:

    I bet some gunstore guy looked at her and said, “Hmmm woman shooter, needs a revolver. Lets give her the meanest looking one we can find” instead of looking at a person, finding one that fits the hand, and then says, her is a good functional firearm, that carries more than 5 shots, and will stop a threat if you do your part.

  19. Andrew Sarcus Says:

    I have half a mind to start a pool on how long it takes the antis to notice and start demanding a ban of “pocket shotguns” or “highly concealable street-sweepers that have no sporting purpose”.

    I can’t decide how I would feel about that. On one hand they are mostly useless and I wouldn’t miss them, on the other hand I hate to see anything banned and on the gripping hand I would like to be able to pick up a used one at a reasonable price if I ever move somewhere that snakes are a concern.

  20. KentuckyCountryboy Says:

    I know better than to say things like I said earlier in mixed company, I said it for discussion’s sake. I know the law regarding most instances, and wouldn’t kill them if they stopped attacking. My theory is that you “shoot to stop” and they stop because the problem has been eliminated.

  21. Kristopher Says:


    Just keep quiet on that stuff. Anything you say on the internet is there forever. If some DA can tie you to that statement after a self-defense shooting, he will screw you up good.

    When involved in self-defense, rule one is STFU. The 911 operator gets told that there was “a shooting”, and that “you were in fear for your life”. Full stop, end of statement.

    Your attorney is paid to talk for you, let him do his job. Don’t make his job harder by running your mouth now.

  22. ViolentIndifference Says:

    Andrew: “gripping hand” You rock.

  23. Jake Says:

    I caught a report somewhere (I don’t remember now, unfortunately) that made it sound like she was using shot, so 3_gun in #5 probably got it right – she’s positive she hit him, and may have, but there’s a good chance it didn’t penetrate whatever winter clothing he might have been wearing, or that it didn’t penetrate enough to do more than get under the skin (even in Georgia I bet it’s cool enough at 0830 in January for a jacket).

  24. Bram Says:

    She obviously missed – adreniline, whatever.

    Anyone shot “point-blank” in the chest with a .410 or a .45 is going to bleed – a lot. The cops would be following a blood trail and there wouldn’t be a doubt about a “possibly wounded” suspect.

  25. mikee Says:

    The Judge has led ammo producers to make specialty shot/slug .410 ammo for use in this revolver for self defense. Better than the old .410 slugs, at least. Still the 45 Colt would work “better” I think.

  26. SPQR Says:

    Same effectiveness as a cap pistol then.

  27. Will Says:

    I live in Albany, and I know some people who know the woman. Supposedly she’s a good shot.

  28. Gunnutmegger Says:

    Gun Tests reviewed one in August 2009.

    Ballistics for .45 LC from a 3″ Judge:

    200gr JHP – 670fps @ 10′ (199ft/lb energy)

    250gr FP – 620fps @ 10′ (217ft/lb energy)

  29. Matt in AZ Says:

    She followed the first rule and brought a gun to the gunfight. She walked away. Respect. Her preparedness, situational awareness, and never give up mentality is 99 percent of it. By god I hope she hit him with a .45.

  30. workinwifdakids Says:

    She bought a gun she could handle, practiced with it extensively, carried it consistently, and exercised situational awareness. It’s our obligation as armed citizens to debrief this and apply its lessons. However, she met the abyss and punched it in the mouth, and is now encouraging others to do the same.

  31. Gunner M. Says:

    I want to compliment the TV station for putting in her comment that people should arm theirselves for safety as it will “save your life”. I am happy that they put that clip in.

  32. markofafreeman Says:

    Gunner M: Exactly. I was quite impressed at the entire report. Not a single comment from some desk-monkey police chief or sheriff make some lame claim that people shouldn’t “take the law into their own hands.”

    Well done, WALB!

  33. Kristopher Says:

    I’d buy one as a plinking toy … and maybe just because I don’t own one.

    Self-defense? Nah, I have better pistols for that.

  34. Chas Says:

    I’ll get a Judge when they make it in 12-gauge for Aguila minishells. Or when S&W makes a 5-shot, 12-gauge minishell version of the j-frame.
    We do have the right to keep and bear arms, don’t we? Sort of, I suppose.