Concealed Carry Permit Holder Saves The Day

[Indiana Oracle]

This is bound to offend a load of people and provide an opportunity for some here to label me (for good probably), but the truth is the truth and I do not apologize for it. Anyone that intends to harm me or those I love is in for a struggle and I agree with anyone else who does the same.

I have a lifetime concealed carry permit. I obtained it to protect my home against opportunistic criminals, and via the permit, to provide a layer of protection from the ACLU. Also, if it ever comes down to it, I can leave my home and protect a territory.

There are many, many stories such as this, but here goes. Last year an individual walked into a convenience store in the area and pointed a gun at a 55 year-old woman desk clerk. She opened up the cash drawer, then blew the jackass's brains out with a Kimber .45.

Good for her.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not.

You are, whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

I'm not.

You are, whether you're willing to admit it, or not. You see, basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms; and the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use.

It is. basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms; and the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use, then neccessarily, the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people; whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

To minimise harm from lawfully owned and use firearms.

Which licesnsing individuals does not accomplish; which registering firearms does not accomplish.

To know exactly where any lawfully owned firearm is at any given time.

The ONLY purpose for which is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

Couple of points Loki.

When I make a point and lay it out in writing you're supposed to contradict it with some sort of evidence. Just contradicting with words such as “You are, whether you're willing to admit it, or not” takes all the fun out of this. I need to know why I'm wrong, I need to see some evidence for it

Licensing, training etc – it depends on where you are. Where I am the situation is as I described. Before someone can lawfully own/possess/use a firearm they have to have a licence to own/use/possess that class of firearm. Before they can obtain that licence they have to undergo some fairly basic training in firearm safety and competent use. That certainly doesn't stop accidental discharges (heck I had an accidental discharge once – with a firearm I mean - and I have quite a bit of training in the use of firearms including yearly – which should be six monthly but it's not up to me to make the rules – re-certification) and other incidents caused by shooter negligence (I admit, I was negligent with my accidental discharge, I was by myself or I would have been disciplined).

When someone is licensed then they can go and get their chosen firearm. If they are found to be “not a fit and proper person” to own/use/possess a firearm then they will lose their licence and their firearm(s). But there has to be due process and there are several avenues of review/appeal against that decision. So, since a licence/firearm can only be removed from someone who is not a fit and proper person – after due process – then that defeats your claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” And that's whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

 

[Diuretic]

One man was killed and another seriously wounded in a shootout inside a Miami Burger King on Tuesday, officials said.

Police said a man wearing a ski mask walked into the store at Biscayne Boulevard and 54th Street and demanded money from a clerk.

A customer, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled a gun, said Officer Jeff Giordano, a Miami police spokesman.

The customer and robber exchanged fire.

The robber was shot dead at the scene.

The customer, who had several gunshot wounds, was taken to Ryder Trauma Center in serious but stable condition, said Lt. Ignatius Carroll, a Miami Fire Rescue spokesman.

At about 4 p.m., officials got several 911 calls reporting people shot inside the Burger King.

1 dead, one injured in Miami Burger King shooting - Breaking News - MiamiHerald.com

-----

I saw Bravo! No telling how many people were saved because of his actions.

It doesn't sound like a wild-west shootout - and I would never advocate something like that.

But it is obvious that this guy saved not only a robbery but also a possible body count.

The counter argument by the anti gun crowd being, of course, that the robber would have never shot anyone and that the law abiding citizen had no right to "execute" a man for armed robber.

The anti-gun crowd would make the argument that if there were no guns, no one would have gotten hurt or killed.

Which is obvious and facile both at the same time.

 

[Diuretic]

This is bound to offend a load of people and provide an opportunity for some here to label me (for good probably), but the truth is the truth and I do not apologize for it. Anyone that intends to harm me or those I love is in for a struggle and I agree with anyone else who does the same.

I have a lifetime concealed carry permit. I obtained it to protect my home against opportunistic criminals, and via the permit, to provide a layer of protection from the ACLU. Also, if it ever comes down to it, I can leave my home and protect a territory.

There are many, many stories such as this, but here goes. Last year an individual walked into a convenience store in the area and pointed a gun at a 55 year-old woman desk clerk. She opened up the cash drawer, then blew the jackass's brains out with a Kimber .45.

Good for her.

I have no problem with any of that.

 

[BrianH]

Re-read the story. The child didn't die.

Grandma was careless with the weapon - no doubt. She should get charged - no doubt.

Both of them were very, very lucky.

Oh ok, yes. Very lucky...

I like gun threads, it's interesting what kind of idiotic nonsense anti-gun folk will come up with.

Unfortunately it usually comes out as a dialogue of the deaf. There's much nonsense on both sides. The chances of a reasonably rational discussion usually go up in flames before thread number three.

And the last one turned into a race thread

 

[LOki]

Couple of points Loki.

When I make a point and lay it out in writing you're supposed to contradict it with some sort of evidence. Just contradicting with words such as “You are, whether you're willing to admit it, or not” takes all the fun out of this. I need to know why I'm wrong, I need to see some evidence for it

But I wasn't just contradicting. It is evident in the posts, you just have to actually read past the first dozen or so words.

It's not that difficult.

Licensing, training etc – it depends on where you are. Where I am the situation is as I described. Before someone can lawfully own/possess/use a firearm they have to have a licence to own/use/possess that class of firearm. Before they can obtain that licence they have to undergo some fairly basic training in firearm safety and competent use. That certainly doesn't stop accidental discharges (heck I had an accidental discharge once – with a firearm I mean - and I have quite a bit of training in the use of firearms including yearly – which should be six monthly but it's not up to me to make the rules – re-certification) and other incidents caused by shooter negligence (I admit, I was negligent with my accidental discharge, I was by myself or I would have been disciplined).

When someone is licensed then they can go and get their chosen firearm. If they are found to be “not a fit and proper person” to own/use/possess a firearm then they will lose their licence and their firearm(s). But there has to be due process and there are several avenues of review/appeal against that decision. So, since a licence/firearm can only be removed from someone who is not a fit and proper person – after due process – then that defeats your claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” And that's whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring the self-evident fact that basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, in no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring that the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent usein no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring the point that the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is unnecessary to establish a reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use, in no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

You see Diuretic, if you'd like to just ignore the points I made again by acccusing me of simple contradiction, you can telll me again how things work so "differently" in your special country, but (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) even in your special country, the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use--basic firearms safety and competent use training are separate from the issues of licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, just like everywhere else.

Given that your country (ANY country) should license individuals to have guns, and require them to register the guns they have, despite lack of necessity for licensing and/or registration in the reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use of firearms, the ONLY remaining purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is (even for your special country) to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people; whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

 

[garyd]

As far as I am concerned perfect gun control is the ability to put a bullet though a rapists head at 25 yards with out splattering any blood on his intended victim...

 

[Diuretic]

Couple of points Loki.

When I make a point and lay it out in writing you're supposed to contradict it with some sort of evidence. Just contradicting with words such as “You are, whether you're willing to admit it, or not” takes all the fun out of this. I need to know why I'm wrong, I need to see some evidence for it

But I wasn't just contradicting. It is evident in the posts, you just have to actually read past the first dozen or so words.

It's not that difficult.

Licensing, training etc – it depends on where you are. Where I am the situation is as I described. Before someone can lawfully own/possess/use a firearm they have to have a licence to own/use/possess that class of firearm. Before they can obtain that licence they have to undergo some fairly basic training in firearm safety and competent use. That certainly doesn't stop accidental discharges (heck I had an accidental discharge once – with a firearm I mean - and I have quite a bit of training in the use of firearms including yearly – which should be six monthly but it's not up to me to make the rules – re-certification) and other incidents caused by shooter negligence (I admit, I was negligent with my accidental discharge, I was by myself or I would have been disciplined).

When someone is licensed then they can go and get their chosen firearm. If they are found to be “not a fit and proper person” to own/use/possess a firearm then they will lose their licence and their firearm(s). But there has to be due process and there are several avenues of review/appeal against that decision. So, since a licence/firearm can only be removed from someone who is not a fit and proper person – after due process – then that defeats your claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” And that's whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring the self-evident fact that basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, in no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring that the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent usein no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

Ignoring the point that the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is unnecessary to establish a reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use, in no way defeats the claim that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” --whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

You see Diuretic, if you'd like to just ignore the points I made again by acccusing me of simple contradiction, you can telll me again how things work so "differently" in your special country, but (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) even in your special country, the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use--basic firearms safety and competent use training are separate from the issues of licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, just like everywhere else.

Given that your country (ANY country) should license individuals to have guns, and require them to register the guns they have, despite lack of necessity for licensing and/or registration in the reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use of firearms, the ONLY remaining purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is (even for your special country) to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people; whether you're willing to admit it, or not.

No Loki, you're confusing fact with opinion. You have the opinion that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” That's not a fact, just your opinion. Everything else in your post is an attempt at bolstering your opinion and I can't see any evidence to transform it from an opinion to a claim.

If you want to make it a claim you have to show some evidence for it. And if I want to defeat that claim then I have to show stronger, counter-evidence, or I'm just expressing an opinion as well.

I don't mean either of us have to roll out a bunch of statistics, just a bit of evidence that goes beyond a mere opinion - that's for both of us by the way.

 

[TheNilvarg]

I've always liked the quote:

"A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet."

People who want to revoke a lawful citizen's right to possess a tool that protects him/her self and family, are nothing more than amoral lowlifes. If you regard the rights of a criminal above the rights of his victim, you lack a firm grasp on reality and any basic understanding of right and wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

I've always liked the quote:

"A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet."

People who want to revoke a lawful citizen's right to possess a tool that protects him/her self and family, are nothing more than amoral lowlifes. If you regard the rights of a criminal above the rights of his victim, you lack a firm grasp on reality and any basic understanding of right and wrong.

What a stupid quote. I mean, how can someone who is dead have any moral value? They're dead.

And how can a woman who has been raped have any particular moral status - dead or alive? Her moral status doesn't change because she's been raped.

What has happened is that her human rights have been terribly violated but her status as a human being never changes.

A really stupid quote.

I don't like it at all.

 

[TheNilvarg]

I've always liked the quote:

"A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet."

People who want to revoke a lawful citizen's right to possess a tool that protects him/her self and family, are nothing more than amoral lowlifes. If you regard the rights of a criminal above the rights of his victim, you lack a firm grasp on reality and any basic understanding of right and wrong.

What a stupid quote. I mean, how can someone who is dead have any moral value? They're dead.

And how can a woman who has been raped have any particular moral status - dead or alive? Her moral status doesn't change because she's been raped.

What has happened is that her human rights have been terribly violated but her status as a human being never changes.

A really stupid quote.

I don't like it at all.

Wow... you really need to read the quote again. It went right over your head.

 

[Diuretic]

I've always liked the quote:

"A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet."

People who want to revoke a lawful citizen's right to possess a tool that protects him/her self and family, are nothing more than amoral lowlifes. If you regard the rights of a criminal above the rights of his victim, you lack a firm grasp on reality and any basic understanding of right and wrong.

What a stupid quote. I mean, how can someone who is dead have any moral value? They're dead.

And how can a woman who has been raped have any particular moral status - dead or alive? Her moral status doesn't change because she's been raped.

What has happened is that her human rights have been terribly violated but her status as a human being never changes.

A really stupid quote.

I don't like it at all.

Wow... you really need to read the quote again. It went right over your head.

Sucked in!

 

[TheNilvarg]

What a stupid quote. I mean, how can someone who is dead have any moral value? They're dead.

And how can a woman who has been raped have any particular moral status - dead or alive? Her moral status doesn't change because she's been raped.

What has happened is that her human rights have been terribly violated but her status as a human being never changes.

A really stupid quote.

I don't like it at all.

Wow... you really need to read the quote again. It went right over your head.

Sucked in!

Yeah, claiming that you were just trying to troll someone to cover up the fact that you just didn't understand my post. Good one.

 

[LOki]

No Loki, you're confusing fact with opinion. You have the opinion that “the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people;...” That's not a fact, just your opinion.

Nonsense. You're confusing argument for opinion. I've made an argument--an argument, by the way, that you're simply contraditing without refuting. Let's call it a fact then.

Everything else in your post is an attempt at bolstering your opinion and I can't see any evidence to transform it from an opinion to a claim.

Everything else in my post succeeds in suppoorting my arguemnt and you can't see any evidence that refutes it.

If you want to make it a claim you have to show some evidence for it.

Evidence and valid logic. My logic is sound, and the evidence is in the self evident nature of licensing and registration--you brought it and now you're denying it's existence?

And if I want to defeat that claim then I have to show stronger, counter-evidence, or I'm just expressing an opinion as well.

And you've brought nothing.

I don't mean either of us have to roll out a bunch of statistics, just a bit of evidence that goes beyond a mere opinion - that's for both of us by the way.

Get started.

 

[Otter_Creek]

(including basic firearms safety and competent use training)

The citizen had a permit, you have to have proof of gun competence training to get one.
doo doo head. is that better?

The citizen had a permit. He shouldn't have one now

I mean the bloke acted like an idiot. For some reason, tombstone courage, panic, blind temper, who knows, he pulled his gun and endangered every single person within range of his firearms and that of the crook. It was an extremely intemperate thing to do.

The accolades for him are because he managed to kill the robber. If he had been killed or if the robber had shot innocent people because he had been challenged the accolades would be muted.

Now I know that's hypothetical but it's not an unreasonable objection.

The appropriateness of his actions need to be properly appreciated. This time it worked out, the next time a ccw citizen, perhaps emboldened by the applause given to this man, including apparently the official approval of the Miami PD, pulls a gun in this situation the results might not be so good. Really, common sense would suggest that if such a situation repeats itself then the ccw citizen(s) present would do well to keep their weapons concealed until it was apparent that there was immediate threat to life and that they shoot the offender without warning, preferably in the back, several times, thus minimising the chances of collateral damage.

I believe you're confusing this world with a perfect one.
A gun pointed at someone is an "immediate threat to life", if the ccw waited until the perp killed someone he would have acted to late.

Would you want me to stand there and wait until this guy shot your teenage child behind the register? I couldn't live with knowing I could have saved their life but didn't act until he killed them. Then it's retribution not protection.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow... you really need to read the quote again. It went right over your head.

Sucked in!

Yeah, claiming that you were just trying to troll someone to cover up the fact that you just didn't understand my post. Good one.

Your post received the treatment it deserved.

 

[Diuretic]

Loki

No you didn't (make an argument ) - and here ordinarily I would insert a YouTube clip of the famous Monty Python argument sketch – but to save bandwidth I'll only make a reference.

You haven't actually produced any evidence.

I'm quite happy to produce some evidence but I need to know what I'm trying to argue against.

I'd like to get going but it's a bit difficult to contest “because I said so.”

I mean you've written:

Ignoring the self-evident fact that basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms....

Assuming the premises a bit there. "Self-evident fact"? Sounds like, "because I said so." It's not a self-evident fact at all. In some jurisdictions you can't do one (be licensed to own/use/possess a firearm) without demonstrating basic firearms safety and competent use.

See what I mean?

In NSW, any person seeking to possess and use a firearm must be authorised by way of a licence or permit. The information contained below relates to obtaining a firearms licence.

All persons wishing to obtain a firearms licence in NSW must have a genuine reason for obtaining the licence.

Applicants must provide proof of their genuine reason and must meet a range of legislative requirements relating to their genuine reason.

Licence holders are only authorised to possess and use the category of firearm for which the licence has been issued and only for the purpose established as being the genuine reason for holding a firearm licence.
Firearms Safety Training Courses


If you are applying for a licence for the first time you will need to complete a Firearms Safety Training Course for longarms or pistols. Refer to each genuine reason FACT Sheet for information regarding available courses

Licences and Genuine Reasons - NSW Police Force

 

[Diuretic]

The citizen had a permit, you have to have proof of gun competence training to get one.
doo doo head. is that better?

The citizen had a permit. He shouldn't have one now

I mean the bloke acted like an idiot. For some reason, tombstone courage, panic, blind temper, who knows, he pulled his gun and endangered every single person within range of his firearms and that of the crook. It was an extremely intemperate thing to do.

The accolades for him are because he managed to kill the robber. If he had been killed or if the robber had shot innocent people because he had been challenged the accolades would be muted.

Now I know that's hypothetical but it's not an unreasonable objection.

The appropriateness of his actions need to be properly appreciated. This time it worked out, the next time a ccw citizen, perhaps emboldened by the applause given to this man, including apparently the official approval of the Miami PD, pulls a gun in this situation the results might not be so good. Really, common sense would suggest that if such a situation repeats itself then the ccw citizen(s) present would do well to keep their weapons concealed until it was apparent that there was immediate threat to life and that they shoot the offender without warning, preferably in the back, several times, thus minimising the chances of collateral damage.

I believe you're confusing this world with a perfect one.
A gun pointed at someone is an "immediate threat to life", if the ccw waited until the perp killed someone he would have acted to late.

Would you want me to stand there and wait until this guy shot your teenage child behind the register? I couldn't live with knowing I could have saved their life but didn't act until he killed them. Then it's retribution not protection.

I situated my response as best I could. The problem with broad statement such as, "a gun pointed at someone is an immediate threat to life" - which is true of course - is that it's a statement totally without context. Let me give two examples.

Situation A - I enter a shop at night through the broken glass front door. I have my revolver drawn and I see movement in the darkness ahead of me. There's a man with a rifle pointed at me. I've got my revolver pointed at him. We're both threatening each other's life. Do I kill him?

Situation B - a man enters a bank, I'm in the bank with my concealed revolver. The man goes up to the counter an points a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller. The crook demands the teller fill a bag with money. There are a dozen or so people in the bank who have wisely hit the floor as soon as the man produced the shotgun. Me too, not wanting to be seen as the odd man out. The robber is threatening the life of the bank teller. Should I pull my revolver and try to kill him?

In my post I indicated that the ....... appropriateness of his actions need to be properly appreciated. That's because in any given situation where someone has pulled a gun on someone else the best response may not be for a third party to pull a gun and shoot one of the parties. That's not to say it would always be inappropriate of course.

 

[Otter_Creek]

The citizen had a permit. He shouldn't have one now

I mean the bloke acted like an idiot. For some reason, tombstone courage, panic, blind temper, who knows, he pulled his gun and endangered every single person within range of his firearms and that of the crook. It was an extremely intemperate thing to do.

The accolades for him are because he managed to kill the robber. If he had been killed or if the robber had shot innocent people because he had been challenged the accolades would be muted.

Now I know that's hypothetical but it's not an unreasonable objection.

The appropriateness of his actions need to be properly appreciated. This time it worked out, the next time a ccw citizen, perhaps emboldened by the applause given to this man, including apparently the official approval of the Miami PD, pulls a gun in this situation the results might not be so good. Really, common sense would suggest that if such a situation repeats itself then the ccw citizen(s) present would do well to keep their weapons concealed until it was apparent that there was immediate threat to life and that they shoot the offender without warning, preferably in the back, several times, thus minimising the chances of collateral damage.

I believe you're confusing this world with a perfect one.
A gun pointed at someone is an "immediate threat to life", if the ccw waited until the perp killed someone he would have acted to late.

Would you want me to stand there and wait until this guy shot your teenage child behind the register? I couldn't live with knowing I could have saved their life but didn't act until he killed them. Then it's retribution not protection.

I situated my response as best I could. The problem with broad statement such as, "a gun pointed at someone is an immediate threat to life" - which is true of course - is that it's a statement totally without context. Let me give two examples.

Situation A - I enter a shop at night through the broken glass front door. I have my revolver drawn and I see movement in the darkness ahead of me. There's a man with a rifle pointed at me. I've got my revolver pointed at him. We're both threatening each other's life. Do I kill him?

Situation B - a man enters a bank, I'm in the bank with my concealed revolver. The man goes up to the counter an points a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller. The crook demands the teller fill a bag with money. There are a dozen or so people in the bank who have wisely hit the floor as soon as the man produced the shotgun. Me too, not wanting to be seen as the odd man out. The robber is threatening the life of the bank teller. Should I pull my revolver and try to kill him?

In my post I indicated that the ....... appropriateness of his actions need to be properly appreciated. That's because in any given situation where someone has pulled a gun on someone else the best response may not be for a third party to pull a gun and shoot one of the parties. That's not to say it would always be inappropriate of course.

First off the ccw is not a police officer, but what would you want him to do if you were the person behind the register and a masked man has a gun pointed at your head.
Though I think I know the answer You will give.

Situation A - I enter a shop at night through the broken glass front door. I have my revolver drawn and I see movement in the darkness ahead of me. There's a man with a rifle pointed at me. I've got my revolver pointed at him. We're both threatening each other's life. Do I kill him?

Under which country's gun laws are you posing the hypothetical airy persiflage?
From a glance at the "Business Reason"PDF You linked to, it looks like the rifle holder could be the shop owner, but maybe it's the bad guy.
So listen good please ... if you're not a cop, don't go through the door, and if you are one.

Do not enter a shop with a smashed glass door. Keep your motor block between you and said door, keep revolver pointed at door.
Call for back up and a K9, When they get there, ID yourself and presence, call for anyone in the building to come out or you'll send in the dog, give them another warning, if no answer send in the dog if dogs handler allows.
I'm glad you asked, and I hope I've kept you safe in that situation now.

Situation B - a man enters a bank, I'm in the bank with my concealed revolver. The man goes up to the counter an points a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller. The crook demands the teller fill a bag with money. There are a dozen or so people in the bank who have wisely hit the floor as soon as the man produced the shotgun. Me too, not wanting to be seen as the odd man out. The robber is threatening the life of the bank teller. Should I pull my revolver and try to kill him?

Now we're getting closer to the subject. Here you are forced into this situation by this criminal. Can you get your gun out without being seen? If you engage him are you at an angle where others in bank can be hit by "Your" gun fire? If you divert attention to yourself can you shoot him before he can shoot you? If you pull your gun will the bank guard shoot you? Is the teller a really fine looking babe or is it just some nerdie looking guy?
Are you really there or are you just hypothesizing you're there with the situation coming out as you the hero, because you know it all?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Situation A - I enter a shop at night through the broken glass front door. I have my revolver drawn and I see movement in the darkness ahead of me. There's a man with a rifle pointed at me. I've got my revolver pointed at him. We're both threatening each other's life. Do I kill him?

Not if that was my shop and that was me pointing my rifle at you... because you'd already be pleading with St. Peter that your life of secular hedonism shouldn't automatically qualifiy you to an eternity of anguish...

You've no business entering a closed place of business after dark... broken glass of otherwise. DUMBASS. You're trespassing...

Situation B - a man enters a bank, I'm in the bank with my concealed revolver. The man goes up to the counter an points a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller. The crook demands the teller fill a bag with money. There are a dozen or so people in the bank who have wisely hit the floor as soon as the man produced the shotgun. Me too, not wanting to be seen as the odd man out. The robber is threatening the life of the bank teller. Should I pull my revolver and try to kill him?

No you should pull your revolver and KILL HIM... no TRYING... One shot center of the mass sitting atop his shoulders... lights out, robbery's over... call in the hazmat crew, this one's gonna be messy.