True enough, though what lessons we should learn from her example are somewhat unclear to me, other than that even less than usually outstanding weapons may get the job done very effectively if fired with the muzzle in contact with the target, adding the force of burning powder gasses and muzzle blast to the damage caused by the bullet. I certainly prefer to avoid such close-range engagements, and also don't at all intend to emulate the late Ms. Wournous methodology for achieving such close-range encounters; neither do i plan to shoot anyone who is unarmed and not a lethal threat to me, though I'll admit it could happen. But I am happily not in the line of work that Eileen Wournous was.
Neither was her choice of a .22 anything particularly new; Smith and Wesson's original family management ceased the production of the original S&W *Ladysmith* .22 revolvers when they learned that the little handguns were being favoured by prostitutes who no doubt had learned the same trick as that employed by their notorious later sister. That name has recently been revived by the firm, hopefully intended for professional women in professions other than that sometimes said to be the oldest one.
But it is really fairly irrelevant whether those we may have to attend to in such circumstances die or not- it is the immediate cessation of their activities that is desired, especially if they're trying to harm us or another, and while their subsequent death may be a byproduct, it is not a substitute for the best possibile ability to cause their actions to cease right now. I learned that so long ago that it sometimes seems self-evident. But there are those who do not get it, or who have misplaced priorities on the matter, and it doesn't hurt to remind others, I guess.