Sweet. Bleeding. Jeebus.

Pseudo-anonymous commenter "a new mexican" links to this AP story, and the commentary attached:

Wal-Mart shooting was first under concealed carry permit

A fatal shooting at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart last week was the state's first by someone with a concealed-carry gun permit, authorities said.

Police said Felix Vigil was attacking his ex-wife with a knife near the store's deli counter where she worked when an armed customer intervened and shot him. The woman, Joyce Cordova, was treated for multiple stab wounds and later released from an Albuquerque hospital.

The armed customer, 72-year-old Due Moore, was interviewed after the shooting last Thursday and released.

Police spokeswoman Officer Trish Hoffman said it appeared the shooting was justified. However, it will be up to the district attorney to decide whether Moore, a volunteer with the police department's cold case unit, will be prosecuted.

Moore could not be reached for comment.

New Mexico allows citizens age 21 and over to carry concealed weapons if they complete firearms training and pass national and local criminal background checks.

Moore's fatal shot was the first fired by someone with a permit, according to state Department of Public Safety spokesman Peter Olson. The state has issued more than 3,100 permits since the gun law went into effect Jan. 1, 2004.

Moore took a class to get his permit just 13 days after the law went into effect, said Cody Patton, a manager at Calibre's National Shooters Sports Center in Albuquerque. That's where Moore was certified.

"He was the fourth person ever to sign up for a permit," Patton said. "I've now done more than 300 of them."

Patton said there has been a fair amount of interest in concealed-carry permits at his range _ in particular during the first four months after the law passed.

I'm not going to quote all (at present) 61 comments, just the two that illustrate just how far out there the anti-gun people can be. First, from "Rita Serrano":

What a bunch of gun happy loons. Just what we don't need is kooks carrying guns shooting and killing other nuts in the deli of the grocery store.

The shooting may have been justified but not killing the man because under the law, the penalty for stabbing your ex-wife is not death.

There's someone who's a member of the "reality based community." Rita? It's called "lethal force" for a reason. And the proper response to lethal force, is (surprise!) lethal force!

But this one really pushes my buttons. Meet Jay Raymond, stereotypical GFW:

Moore should be charged if only for lawmakers to see that their idea of adequate self defense can quickly move to vigilantism when the gun holder's perception allows zero legal and moral responsibility.

Obviously Mr. Raymond is not too familiar with a dictionary. "Vigilantism" is not what Mr. Moore exhibited. The legitimate use of force in the immediate defense of self or others is not limited to law officers.

Absolutely no one here knows squat as to whether an innocent life was saved or not. Turns out, an innocent life was not saved (as defined under the law). Whether threatening with a knife (not a capital offense) or with a cannon . . . when someone without adequate police training chooses to shoot to kill (as opposed to talking down or disabling), or disregards law enforcement and statutory protocols delivered into law since the days of Wyatt Erp, we are watching society break down.

Err, what? "An innocent life was not saved?" What, Vigil was just kidding when he was stabbing his ex-wife? That's not "threatening", that's attacking. And the use of lethal force in the defense of another is perfectly legal - whether you're a cop or Joe Average. Everyone was supposed to wait until the cops showed up? Kitty Genovese all over again? Thank you, no.

And, of course, we get the obligatory "adequate police training" canard - from someone who has probably never pulled a trigger in his entire life, and believes that cops shoot to "disable." Perhaps he missed the recent incidents in which police officers fired ridiculous amounts of ammo - at least 103 rounds in Pittsburg, over 70 rounds in San Antonio, 120 rounds fired in Los Angeles. Yes, all those shots were fired to disable, don'tcha know? And every one was fired by a highly-trained police officer. And those are just the most recent examples. I've got more. This is the model GFW who believes that only people who draw a government paycheck can be trusted with a firearm. I've never understood that mentality.

But wait! There's more! (Isn't there always...)

That the egos of some are so swollen from Yosimite Sam Syndrome to even dare suggest that this form of vigilantism in any way protects the whole of society or should even be tolerated for gun licensees who's responsibility, within obtaining the permit, should be limited to SELF DEFENSE ONLY, bespeaks not only arrogance, but lunacy.

Mr. Raymond expands on his "only government employees are qualified" mantra here, since I'm certain that he'd be A-OK if an officer shot someone who was attacking him. But what really waxes my ass is his insistence that coming to the aid of another is vigilantism. Arrogance? Thy name is Jay Raymond.

This law stinks to start with, but what moron shoots to kill when a shot into the ceiling, or failing that, a shot to the foot would have likely stopped this situation.

"This law" is the same law now in force in what, 43 of our 50 states? But it offends Mr. Raymond. Too bad.

No, Mr. Raymond. You shoot to stop. If you have to pull your gun and fire, then lethal force must be justified. Shooting into the ceiling? What if it ricochets off of a structural member and strikes an innocent? Shoot for a foot? Can you hit a small moving target under stress? Even if you hit it, a foot won't stop the round. Where does that bullet go? No. You shoot for center of mass, just like you practice. Two to the chest, assess, and if necessary try for one to the head. Be aware of what's behind your target, and watch the front sight. And keep shooting until you're empty, or the threat is over.

Only morons fire warning shots or shoot to wound.

Shoot to stop, not to kill. If he dies, he dies. It was his choice to start the attack, your duty to end it. Not vigilantism, Mr. Raymond, duty. The duty of a citizen. A duty you not only shirk, but denigrate.

Moore may have had itchy finger, based on his certification timeline and disregard of logic in his approach to killing this guy. What if his own sanity and judgment is in question? The certification doesn't allow for professional psychological assessment (which should be mandatory), but merely relies on criminal records of past to determine whether "Bubba" moves to the training level.

From the fingertips of someone who most probably has a pathological fear of weapons. The "itchy trigger finger" meme. How original. Yes, everyone who carries a handgun for defense is just itching to kill. We really look forward to all that time spent with the police, our lawyer, the nearly inevitable civil lawsuit that will cost thousands. Yup. Each and every one of us is just a Travis Bickel underneath it all.

Hairless turbo-monkeys . . . with guns and poorly written laws. Perfect!

You little boys wanna play cowboy . . . you should be made to jump through every assessment hoop possible and then sign a statement of financial responsibility so that when you do screw up (and Moore did), you have to pay all legal costs and if guilty of interference and murder, sit in jail while paying compensation to the family of the deceased . . . so that the taxpayer doesn't get stuck with the expense from your form of penile enlargement.

Ah, and no tirade can be complete without the obligatory reference to sexual organ inadequacy!

Repeat after me, Mr. Raymond: Freud said that fear of weapons was a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. And you seem a prime candidate for some couch time.

The other posters do a good job whacking these idiots with the ClueBat™, and I'm proud to see them, but people like this really chap my hide.

How can one go through life and be this disconnected from reality?

UPDATE, 8/31: Publicola does whack-a-troll at extended length (he reminds me of me!) to some hoplophobe from a comment at Annika's Journal.

Alex said, "This entire blog is written to demean, make fun of, belittle and generally harass those who don't agree with you." To which I replied, "Nope. It's written to illuminate, expose, correct and educate. The demeaning, belittling, and harassing is just an extra added side benefit." This is what it looks like when people who are tired of the idiocy and bigotry of the gun-control movement stand up for the truth and our rights.

Get used to it, because we're not going to stay silent any more. And we're recruiting.