It's easy to armchair-quarterback, but I for one am inclined to cut the guy some slack. Though I would guess we probably differ in the answer to the $10,000,000 question:
Assuming the story played out as described, would you feel society is safer with this guy armed or disarmed?I for one would prefer that he stay armed. His actions weren't perfect, but he could probably do better next time (e.g. plugging the bad guy sooner). There frankly isn't any way of judging how someone will perform in a situation like this until it actually arises, and while it's all very easy for someone to say they'd do things better, I really don't think anyone can know for sure.
Do you think Mr. Beck should be forever disarmed?
The world is better off allowing folks to defend themselves and insisting folks take responsibility for their actions. It is worse off when it fails to address self centered wrecklessness.
This self proclaimed target shooter failed the target shooting test. He's 3 for 17 and popped a woman in a hostage position with pray and spray. In the same string of shots he popped both twice. It's a good thing Beck's shop wasn't located in a mall. You might as well have cut him some slack and let him have grenades and RPGs.
I think Mr. Beck should have been charged with felony recklessness. Otherwise the use of grandes, RPGs for such action is valid. The fed law imposing lifelong across the board denial of rights to all felons regardless, is another question.
That could have been your wife, and babies in the back of that van. Do you want to get a phone call finding out they've all been plugged by a hero twarting the escape of a petty thug?