And those agencies do what exactly?
I never said that such agencies are ignorant and that I was superior.
I was speaking as a member of the civilian population,such a person makes it a priority to aviod using lethal force until they have no other choice.
My job isn't to take agressive action against a paramilitary or military force.
My job is to make it from point A to point B and then arrive home at point C.
I understand none of us are agencies or armies, but when you have the opportunity to own the same sidearm as them, doesn't it only make sense? To state that a revolver which can fire 45 colt , 45 acp and buckshot might be better than whats tried and true is a bit ridiculous. Can a pistol that is small enough to carry be too combat-like to be advantageous for SD? In other words, can anyone really call a sidearm carried by some type of organization over kill? Can you really be too ready? I'm also not one of the tacticool people either. I don't mean keep an AR in your car or have grenades, but on the other hand, if you want to rely on a pistol for SD, shouldn't you buy the best that's out there? Shouldn't you get something where there is a unanimous opinion as to its effectiveness?
Now I'm not one to be a sheep, and so I'm not someone who carries a glock because of the NYPD or the Austrian army or anything but there is concrete evidence for certain sidearms, and there is concrete evidence against certain firearms. This all has been studied by millions of people millions of times over. As said, the judge/governor has enough limitations to where I don't think its worth owning. I'm not alone in saying that. You're looking at one small part of a large painting that is a SD weapon. Interesting that its a miracle gun, and yet took so long for someone to manufacture? Hmmm why would that be? Because companies realized limitations to this design a long time ago and reasonably assumed it would not sell well.
Of course I don't want shot with buckshot from 5 or 10 feet away. No one does. But that is that the only criteria to consider? Shooting 45 colt or acp through the gun only in some way defeats the purpose when there were already 45 cal revolvers and 45 cal semi pistols. Shooting buckshot from a revolver, when in the home, is another example of the gun not having a leg up on the predecessor, a pump 12g shotgun. You could have a pistol grip pump or semi shotgun with approx the same capacity, or more, compact, and much more powerful. If you carry a 1911 instead of this "miracle weapon" you gain accuracy, effective/useful range (I believe the average shooter could shoot farther more accurately with a 1911 than a governor/judge) and capacity. Many people can reload a semi faster, but I know with moon clips someone can reload a revolver real quick with practice.
To everyone else: I'm not a gun snob who puts down someone who says "I bought a judge/governor" because if I was, I would be up all day and night since those guns sell well. My statements are directed at the claims of this type of gun being superior to other "9mm 40 S&W or 45 acp" handguns and any other claims that I see as misinformed. If you want to buy it because you think its cool, that's fine, but don't come on here and act as though you figured out its actually better than established arms. Don 't post mentioning the increased effectiveness as close range, and then forget to mention all of the detractors to the gun. The "logical reasoning" that people put out in support of these type of guns pales in comparison to the logical reasoning that has been put against the weapon. Its not like the "anti" shot-volver crowd can't understand this stuff either.
I'd be interested to see the gun resumes of people who think this is a great SD choice and then those that don't. I wonder if there would be any type of correlation?
