I read your article about the self-defense shooting at the Buell's jewelry store. Giving the article the title "Man takes the law into his own hands" is a very inaccurate perception of the situation and only serves to make law-abiding gun owners look bad in the public eye. Taking the law into your own hands is the hallmark of a vigilante, which is illegal in most States that I'm aware of. Mr Buell did nothing illegal. He did not "take the law into his own hands". He simply exercised his right to defend himself against the clear and urgent threat of physical attack by a criminal. Everyone has that right. Exercising it and defending oneself against attack is not taking the law into your own hands. Taking the law into your own hands, what a vigilante would do, would be, for example, if the criminals had shot Mr. Buell's son and/or taken some jewelry, then Mr. Buell got in his car and chased them in an attempt to apprehend them and recover the stolen valuables.
That's what taking the law into your own hands means. It's what a vigilante would do, which is illegal. Mr. Buell did nothing wrong. He defended himself against attack, which is perfectly legal and does not constitute "taking the law into your own hands". Reporters such as yourself that don't understand the differences in the law only serve to misinform the public of it, which, in the end, undermines it. If you consider yourself a responsible journalist, you would print a follow up to that article clarifying the misconception you just helped perpetuate.