Posted on 12/17/2021 12:20:20 PM PST by Impala64ssa
Florida Sheriff Grady Judd, a man who God willing will one day be Attorney General under a DeSantis Administration, is praising a homeowner today. That homeowner protected his home against a home intruder. We've celebrated these stories before. A bad guy does bad guy things. He threatens the life of a good guy. That good guy has a gun. Shots get fired. The good guy isn't the one who is all Swiss-cheese'd up. What really makes this video 10/10 content is Sheriff Judd's vocal defense of the second amendment.
"I’m proud of our homeowner for defending himself. It’s called a ‘Castle Doctrine.’ He has the right to protect himself and his home from unknown intruders."
“The homeowner did exactly what he should have: he had a gun, he knew how to use it, it was loaded, and he shot him a lot. He gave him an early Christmas present."
"Only Santa Claus gets to come in your house and Santa Claus is invited.”
We here at the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website have been fans of the sheriff for a while. For starters, Grady Judd is the coolest name for a sheriff this side of Buford T. Justice. But Sheriff Judd has been an outspoken proponent of the second amendment, too. He's advised Floridians that if they are comfortable with firearms they should have one for self-defense. He's warned would-be rioters that his citizens not only have guns, but they know how to use them. One time, he even used visual aides to explain slowly to reporters the difference between "peaceful protest" and "violent riot."
Sheriff Grady Judd is a national treasure.
Please check out the Wilson Combat channel on YouTube and see what Massad Ayoob says about this. He knows as much about this as you do, probably way more. You need to view it.
Oh, one more thing. If you ever get into a defensive firearm event, one of the first things the DA is going to do is pull up all your social media accounts, including this one. Some of you might want to revisit your signature line or other bellicose statements you’ve made here, lest they show up on a Power Point slide at your trial.
You’re moving goal posts
Please check out the YouTube reference. Ayoob says we have an ethical responsibility to correct anyone using the “shoot to kill” phrase.
No, none of us should ever shoot to kill someone in self defence. We shoot to stop the threat. Center mass shots are the most reliable defensive shots and are generally favoured over head shots. A Center mass shot that sends a Speer Gold Dot +P (what I’m currently using) through someone else’s left ventricle had a high likelihood of stopping the threat. I suppose it might have significant adverse health effects on the attacker, but it certainly wouldn’t be my intent to kill anyone.
Saw the video, understand his emphasis on legality - but reasonably sure he’s never fought anyone. I spent about 15 months in combat and I killed a number of men. Likely a whole lot more than most and definitely more than you or Mr. Ayoob.
Each one was shooting at me or the men near me and I was ending the threat. If the guy surrendered, he was safe. If he didn’t surrender, he was dead.
If someone breaks into my home, the rules of combat apply. I’ll face the law afterward if I survive.
You don’t know anything about Massad Ayoob. You are not speaking from a position of knowledge.
I’ve fulfilled my duty to inform you. Live the life you please. God bless you.
I will, thank you.
Why do you have to not kill the surrendered?
Serious question.
38?
I understand the legal issues and abide by them. However I think that as a country we have yaken a big step backwards by removing lethal threat from attackers and other criminals.
Self defense calibers should always start with a “4”, such as .40, .44, or .45. . . . .
___________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps but a lot of people are dead from a cop’s 38 which is pretty similar to 9mm. A lot of soldiers died from 9mm rounds. I don’t think the 9mm lost the wars I think it was allied interdiction of shipping that won the war in Europe both times.
Probably a good question - but that was what we were taught as Marines. Usually the guy was wounded already and made it clear he was surrendering, so we would take him prisoner.
On May 13, 1967, we were following a river very early in the morning when a VC jumped up and ran. Almost everyone had the new M16 and fired off tons of rounds but nobody hit him. He got to about 200m away and I shot him with my M14 and though I was aiming at his head, I actually hit him in the left hand, tearing off his hand's edge and his little finger. We ran up to him and he had surrendered so we took his weapon and the grenade in his belt and then bandaged his hand and then took him with us.
We ran into a reinforced enemy company a little later and while I was trying to retrieve some of our wounded, I was shot through my right thigh and as I lay on the ground, my prisoner helped me get a tourniquet on and then helped carry me to the helicopter. I remember him waving his bandaged hand at me as we lifted off.
Your next post had "38" on it. if the question is if I killed more than 38, then the answer is yes.
The .45 has a much better record of killing in combat
.38 caliber? Instead of 40?
Ww2 vets told me that they executed enemy all the way across Europe.
I suspect that was also true in the pacific
The .45 has a much better record of killing in combat.
_______________________________________________________________________
No doubt that this statement is true, however; the most deadly gun is the one you have with you. People have a tendency to leave their 45’s at home but are willing to carry 38’s and 9mm’s. Ask Trayvon Martin how effective one shot of a 9mm can be.
I carry. I always carry, I like my very small 9mm that no one suspects that I am carrying. I’m not looking for a gunfight but I won’t be caught in a gunfight with only my fists. I think the report of a weapon is enough to scare off many would be bad people. Even a non-fatal hit from 9mm may be enough to take someone out of the fight and that is all I really want anyway.
The most important feature of a 9mm (personal protection round) is that it wont usually go through someone so you don’t have to worry about hitting an innocent bystander. Not so true with .45 cal. It could kill more than once.
As far as the pistol debates go, I'm really describing military use of pistols, not really civilian use. I carried a .45 (and a full-auto M14) in combat in Vietnam and while I never shot anybody with a .45, I saw it used often enough and one time a .45 saved my life in the hands of another Marine. Of all the people I saw shot a .45, none lived.
In civilian life, I usually carry a .380 - for the same reasons you brought up. It's a little thing, but it's got plenty of bark if needed.
I'm just annoyed that the "experts" replaced the tried and true and supremely dependable .45 with that oversize Beretta 92.
This them provokes a lot of disagreement
I have a .45, and a .38 snubbie. Most of the time it's the .38 that I grab, simply because I can conceal it under anything.
I save the .45 for when I know I'll be going through bad areas at night, or when the threat condition seems elevated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.