O.k. let’s go over this again young lady. Great job in getting the gun. However, your follow up leaves much to be desired. 1. Point gun at sub-human’s chest; 2. quickly fire 3 rounds into said sub-human, hopefully killing it. Now if and when the police find it the sub-human will enter our beyond pathetic criminal injustice system. It will be given a sleazy, morally challenged defense attorney at our expense, who will whine and cry on behalf of the sub-human that the sub-human should not be responsible for its own actions, it will be sentenced to 1/100 the amount of time it should have received by some liberal judge, and will be released early by some idiot parole board, and while in prison it will be taught by other sub-humans how to be a better criminal. And the next time it will have a gun and may shoot or terrorize some innocent person. To the clerk — when you’ve got the shot — take it!
Si! Se pueda.
If you point it to protect yourself, SHOOT IT!
With respect, I disagree with your prescription.
The firearm carried by a "citizen" is a defensive, for personal protection tool. There was NO NEED to "kill" this perp. The firearm was used, IMHO, correctly to PROTECT this women from further/potential injury. She produced a firearm, the perp ran-end of story. No one was killed-no one was hurt.
I believe the purpose of the firearm is to "STOP the threat of force", NOT kill. Now, I am a realist, sometimes in order to stop the attack, the perp will ultimately rapidly assume room temperature. but I don't believe those who do carry should go through their lives with the intent of becoming vigilantes, dispensing death at the very drop of the hat. That IMHO, is the wrong way to think.
I think, therefore, the BEST outcome was the outcome-the threat of force was met with a bigger and more serious threat-and no one was ultimately killed.