The crime was initiated with gun.

Zero points for the pro-gun attempted argument.

Shares United rises again

People don't rob banks, GUNS rob banks.

That bank never would have had any trouble if that GUN hadn't decided to grab some spending money.

Outlaw guns and banks will be safe again. (What will keep US safe from the bankers, I don't know.)

Then its people with dogs rob banks.

Guns don't shoot people, people with guns shoot people.

Opening fire in a situation like that increases the liklihood of an innocent getting killed, the guy is very lucky the robber did not shoot back. Sorry gun nuts, but starting a fire fight in a public place does not make us safer, it is much better to allow the police to deal with the situation because the robber probably had no intention of firing a shot. The way to handle this is to let the robber escape and then immediately call 911 with a description when he is out the door.

Normally you and I conflict about guns. But in this case, unless further information that is favorable for the CCWer comes to light, I must agree. Let the robber go, get a good description, call 911. Unless you see something that actually indicates that the robber is about to shoot, you have no business pulling your gun and shooting.

...and the civilian had plenty of reason with the robber pointing his "weapon". There are plenty of sites carrying this story if you really need more info.

opinions are staked out with little or no relevant information, which wouldn't be released to the media anyway while the investigation is still underway.

Robbers tend to be cowards. Pull out a gun, and they go running. Assuming the guy with the CCW knew that nobody else would be hit, then I think he is free to open fire.

It all depends on exactly what went down. If the robber is on his way out the door, then let him leave, but if somebody is waiving a gun at me, I'm not going to assume they have good intentions.

You are putting other people's lives in danger out of hope that the robber is a coward that will not shoot back, if you are wrong then innocent people could die. Have you been trained in how to handle a high intensity fire fight in a public area? Your comment indicates you clearly do not know how to safely handle a weapon, you are the reason gun control is needed. Most people don't want untrained people starting fire fights in public places.

As such, I don't carry in public.

Even with that being said, I don't know what went on down there, and I'm guessing neither do you. I'm going to trust the actions of the law abiding citizen, if you want to trust that the criminal had no evil intent, (even though be brought a gun to a crime), then so be it.

People with CCW permits stop crimes every day. The last time I heard of somebody innocent getting shot because an honest person started a gun fight happened in NYC.

Maybe cops shouldn't respond to crimes either. We don't want innocent people to get hurt. (NYC police officers don't exactly have the best accuracy)

First of all I never took the side of the criminal, in fact I very clearly said 911 should be called immediately, most criminals would not encourage that. That is your first strawman.

You may not like this fact but the truth is concealed carry people commit more crimes than they stop, the reason honest people don't shoot innocent people in gun fights is that honest people don't start gun fights. If a person opens fire in public they are almost always a criminal not an honest person, sorry but NRA gun nuts are not considered to be honest people by most of us. Most honest people don't feel a need to pack heat every time they step outside.

Yor final strawman is the most ridiculous thing you say, "maybe the cops shouldn't respond to crime". That statement is so dumb it deserves no further response.

People with a CCW permit stop crimes all the time. It often means criminals get shot, but perhaps they should have chosen a safer profession.

In this exact case, the guy with a CCW permit, shot the criminal, and everything ended up ok, so what is the point of playing monday morning quaterback as neither of us knows all the details.

You may not like this fact but the truth is concealed carry people commit more crimes than they stop, the reason honest people don't shoot innocent people in gun fights is that honest people don't start gun fights. If a person opens fire in public they are almost always a criminal not an honest person, sorry but NRA gun nuts are not considered to be honest people by most of us. Most honest people don't feel a need to pack heat every time they step outside. 

Bullshit reporting and you clinging to it for all that it's worth. Come back when you've reviewed the FBI's data and states like Texas that actually keep stats.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

supporting his claim. His argument doesn't actually make sense because recidivism isn't relevant. One of his answers to a comment, he refers the commenter to someone named "janitor" at the gun blog high road. I checked it out, "janitor" didn't say what Woods claimed.

So yeah, it's a red herring.

Then they prevent. It only shows that incidents of justify able use are under reported. It also shows that the percentage of crimes committed by ccw holders is less then the crime rate of the general population.

Then they prevent. Link please?

I know you don't care what I think, and that nothing I say will change any one's mind so I'll just focus on the knee jerk. Please back up your assertion.

Any one truly interested in my opinion may read on, but know that I am not interested in a flame war. I respectfully agree to disagree.

If he had a clear shot and was being threatened then he was within his right to defend himself. I think that training should be required for ccw holders, and I am not sure to what degree this guy was trained, but I think the chances that he had some training are pretty good considering the out come.

I agree, let the crook go and call 911 if possible, but I have to say that it could quickly become a hostage situation. If it did, I wouldn't want to be the packing hostage who gets shot first because I was to worried about every one Else's safety.

I am not a ccw Holder, but if a crook were to invade my house I would not hesitate to shoot him provided I knew that there was no person behind him even on the other side of a wall. Furthermore, I would be protecting the safety of every one in my house, and possibly my neighborhood.

What about fair trial? The crook gave up that right the moment he pulled a gun in the commission of a crime. Would I like him to face justice? Sure. Do I feel bad that he is dead? Nope. Do I think that ccw guy did the right thing? May be, depends on the situation. Were you there?

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly three (3) murder convictions and three (3) manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 578 convictions for murder in its various forms.

So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus six innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

police forces could attract and keep high quality officers.

He should have let the robber leave. The bank was capable of taking the proper course of action without his involvement putting their staff and customers at greater risk.

since the one paragraph isn't detailed enough nor were we there, that may or may not have a viable option. That's why I don't really care for OPs like this, everyone makes assumptions based on their preconceived views because none of the relevant details are given. In these cases, minute details are everything. I have no opinion based on the article, because it doesn't provide anything to base it on, other than what the CCW weapon wasn't.

That's what we do on the interwebs. I'm sure there will be an inquiry by the authorities that will determine the facts. And then we'll know.

was not a bank customer, he was a bank employee. An armed bank employee is acting as a guard in this situation. The robber pointed his replica gun at a teller on the floor and threatened her. The employee retrieved his SW .357 and shot the robber in the jaw. They caught him with spike strips after a high-speed chase. I do agree with you that a customer with a CCW should not automatically take out his weapon and begin firing. That is drummed into the heads of people taking the CCW class in Minnesota, don't pull out your weapon unless your life or someone else's life is in imminent danger.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/missouri-bank-employee-shoots-robber-stop-heist/

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/05/4094314/kc-police-nab-wounded-bank-robber.html

it illustrates what I was talking about. Some of the posters made the assumption that the shooter was a CCW customer that just opened fired based on nothing other than their own prejudices and where they stand on guns. Last time I was in a bank with an armed guard, that I know of, was in the Philippines. Come to think of it, the book stores and McDs had armed guards too. Went in a jewelry store and the guard had an SMG.

was not a traditional 'armed guard' in uniform, but a bank officer (not officer as in cop, but officer as in his status at the bank) in a suit with a permit and a concealed gun.

One of the most important pieces of training is mental.
I will not speculate based on a news story as to whether he should be charged or not.
Did he reasonably believe that his or another's life was in immediate jeopardy?
Is he able to articulate?

Sorry gun nuts, but starting a fire fight in a public place does not make us safer, it is much better to allow the police to deal with the situation because the robber probably had no intention of firing a shot.

"Probably" is a horrible chance to take with someone's life. Remember ... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
The time to shoot back is NOT after the robber killed someone.

The armed individual obviously had some training to be able to fire a shot under the stress of a life and death situation.