"it is clear that the pistol changed his mind about accessing the sons room and the shotgun subdued him for the police to arrive."
No: It's not. Firing the pistol caused him to masturbate frantically and far from subduing him... "Officers arrived to find the suspect "flailing around on the floor and not making any sense". After he "sucked the water from the spilled vacuum into his mouth and spat it back out", he made several attempts to escape and was tasered into submission."
So: No. He was not subdued by the firearms. He was subdued by a taser. I think perception bias is perhaps making you take from the text what you want to see, rather than what is there.
"Given to your walking out idea this guy could have been seriously harmed or caused serious harm because he was obviously not all there."
It's probably safer than having him within 6 feet of a loaded firearm, and if he does come to harm, it's then not any of my business.
"Your solution would suggest that you want an easy time for criminals and believe it is right to encourage crime. Letting crimes happen oddly enough allow crime."
This guy was not a 'criminal'. He was clearly temporarily insane, which caused him to commit a crime. That's not 'a criminal'.
"As we have confirmed before, you would take out any assailant just like chuck norris and expect we can all do that."
You seem to have this serious issue with the fact that other people feel that they can avoid crime without needing to blow fucking big holes in other people. Why is that?
You are unwilling to spend at least a few hours learning how to reduce the risk of crime to yourself and a few hundred quid on a security system, but you want to be able to spend money on a lethal weapon and expect to use that as some kind of equaliser without spending at least as much time learning how to safely use it as it would take to learn how to diffuse or avoid situations which require you to use a lethal weapon? That's wild west logic: You've fixated on the gun as the solution to the problem, instead of thinking of OTHER solutions.
"Simply it is funny to suggest the firearm didnt resolve this situation peacefully. Certainly takes a selective view to dream up."
No it's not. Don't be absurd and accuse me of being selective when you even ignored what the police are quoted as saying. How would walking out the back door have been worse? How would threatening with a cricket bat been worse? From WHAT THE WORDS IN THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY SAY rather than what you want them to say, it is not in any way clear that the firearms 'solved' the problem. Please show me where you believe it says they did and where the home-owners had no option but recourse to pulling out firearms.
"Without the firearms to control the situation without lethal force or further harm this could have been a very bad outcome."
Yes, the naked, unarmed, non-violent man could have wanked himself to death or something. Terrible. I really don't know how I'll sleep tonight without a couple of firearms in another room of my home.