A couple of months ago I saw a mother with two little children. She wore a holstered sidearm on her hip at a Hueytown, Alabama, Walmart. Warmed my old dino heart. No one would want to mess with her and her kids. Yeehaw!

I thought I recognized that event. It happened back in January. I report on defensive gun use twice a week, and DGUs like this are not unusual at all.

"As far as I'm concerned, he's mentally ill by definition: he attempted to initiate force on others and no sane person does that."
The legal definition is the insane person doesn't even know he's doing it. He may not run from the police or leave evidence without worrying about it. If he runs from the police or in some way plans to get away with the crime, he's not insane by the legal definition. Whether he's insane (which I probably wouldn't know in this situation) would not affect my decision to shoot him to save lives.

"Nobody except Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger ever tried to shoot the gun from the hand of a nut."
I agree. I don't practice much, so in an emergency situation I would be concerned about missing a person 3 meters away with handgun. I would aim for the center of the body mass.

"If you pull a gun and try to use force on others, you die. That's justice."
I agree with everything you say but I don't call it justice.

The courts walked away on justice a long time ago.

We have a legal system, and any justice it actually produces is in spite of the system.

Every person in that business should have been armed and each should have shot him together. If you pull a gun and try to use force on others, you die. That's justice.

In addition, I would want you or the next person to defend my family as I would yours.

Nobody except Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger ever tried to shoot the gun from the hand of a nut. If I'm in position to shoot someone like him, he's going to be dead and I'd be proud to be that person, with or without a permit.

I have no desire to kill anyone, ever but I am not unhappy he is dead. From my perspective, everyone of those people is someone's family. If a person came and threatened my family or friends with death, there would be no hesitation on my part. Shoot to kill and don't look back. While I would remember it for the rest of my life, I would also remember that my family or friend was still alive because I acted without hesitation. If you hesitate, you may not get a second chance. To me, anyone that chooses to threaten someone with a weapon is I'll.

I still don't understand needing a permit. Criminals will never ask permission to carry and kill. We should never ever need permission from anyone, especially the government, to be in a position to defend ourselves, our family or anyone else that is threatened by a criminal. The permit is simply all about politics. Gives politicians another reason to feel they have power over people because they grant us permission to carry.

Truth.

As far as I'm concerned, he's mentally ill by definition: he attempted to initiate force on others and no sane person does that.

Yes, but if you notice in the article, that's what the police are doing, investigating to make sure he had a proper permit to be carrying. Can't let those bad un-permitted people save anybody, don't you know.

"If a bad guy uses and gun and gets killed, well, that's the cost of doing business for him."

Shooting him is to protect innocent people, nothing to do with justice. Justice is for the courts to decide later and for random chance (God, if you believe in that sort of thing) to decide whether he dies. As you say, if he dies, that's the unfortunate cost of his choices or mental illness. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I'm not happy he's dead, but i completely agree with the policy: a law-abiding citizen should shoot for the center of the body mass (b/c shooting the hand with the gun has a much greater chance of missing), disarm the perpetrator, and call for ambulance/police.

Maybe this prep turns out to be mentally ill. Maybe he's a cold-blooded killer. Maybe the shot kills him or by luck causes relatively minor injuries. Hopefully he doesn't die b/c most law-abiding citizens would rather not kill another human. That's not for us to decide. All we can/should do is act decisively to prevent the person with the gun from hurting any innocent people.

Permit be &*(&^^*. When I first went into law enforcement and old boyfriend said: "Never forget it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

If a bad guy uses and gun and gets killed, well, that's the cost of doing business for him.

This is key: instead of the high likelihood of multiple fatalities and utter chaos, all but one fatality a victim; we have the purveyor of force receiving the justice he so richly deserved at the hands of one of his potential victims.

But Oh My, if he didn't have the proper permit:

"I applaud this Good Samaritan for stepping up and protecting everyone else in the store, including themselves. If they hadn’t been there, this situation could have turned out a whole lot different. There may have been fatalities and there may have also been hostages. The gunman waved the gun at two cashiers, and was about to order them into a break room. What happened next would have been terrifying. After someone called in police and SWAT teams, there would have been a rain of lead that could have been deadly. Not only would they shoot the gunman, but the gunman may have taken lives out with him. Or he could have shot several people before turning the gun on himself."