From the OP:
The host then asked the Sheriff if this person had a CCW as rumored. He confirmed that he did. Then they discussed why he did not attempt to utilize his weapon to try to halt the shooting.
The Sheriff believes he did the right thing. The shooter was using a full automatic rifle. The Sheriff said that you don't take a knife to a gun fight and you don't take a pistol to a rifle fight.
That line of reasoning is absolutely false. It's illogical for the simple reason that both the CCW and the perp were equally or nearly-equally armed. Let me explain: In a situation where the distance is less than 50 feet, both possessed equal ability to stop the other. The perp had two slight advantages. The first was that his firearm was already drawn. The second is that because it was a rifle, it'll be both more powerful and more accurate than the firearm carried by the CCW.
So what? One round from a 9mm is enough to disrupt the perp's ability to accurately fire the rifle. If it's a .357, 40, or 45, all the better. Double-tap the perp and you'll slow him way down if not stop him altogether, certainly enough to make a head shot count, assuming you're close enough to make sure you don't miss.
As the line in Starship Troopers goes, "How can he pull the trigger if you disable his hand?" Naturally, you're not aiming for his hand. But if you're both squared off at one another, it doesn't matter whether he has a peashooter, a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle. If you stop him, then you stop him from shooting you.
I believe the sheriff's mistake lay in the fact they're trained not to shoot unless as a matter of last resort. Their repertoire covers talk-downs, take-downs, and the use of non-lethal force before it gets to lethal force. We privately-armed citizens may or may not have had such training, but in that particular situation, where the guy is dropping restaurant patrons left and right, the only remaining solution is to take him out. The longer you wait, the more others, and possibly yourself, will die.
Having said that, there are several justifiable reasons as to why the CCW hesitated or refused to draw his firearm, including being eyed by the perp or being surrounding by friends or family.
That if he had drawn he probably would have been a casualty and the department would have lost key communication.
That depends on the CCW's skills and experience.
By the way, the sheriff came across as progun and pro-CCW. He said that there have been many times when a CCW had helped end a criminal activity and that he was thankful for it. But he insisted that this time, the CCW'er acted correctly.
In your opiion, did this CCW guy do the right thing?
As I wasn't there, and don't have the details as to how things unfolded, I'll have to take the sheriff's word for it.
What would you have done?
If the perp's rifle were pointed in any other direction than at me, I can draw and fire before he can train on me. But I usually OC, not CC. Had I been CCing, I'd have waited until the perp's attention was clearly elsewhere before I drew and fired.
Had I been OCing, since I can draw and double-tap a man-sized target in less than a second, that's precisely what I'd have done.
I want to hear from those of you that have more experience with this and/or are instructors.
Does military service count?
I also speak as one who has open carried to IHOP at least once a week for several years. I've often thought about what I would have done and can come to no conclusion other than I would have take out the perp ASAP.
), but it may be enough time to draw, bead and place 2-3 well-aimed shots while he reloads. Given the stress of the situation, though, I can't really say how I would respond in this situation. I've been shot at before by someone armed with a handgun, with glass flying around and into my ear canal, mouth and clothing but I've never actually been hit or been shot at by someone armed with a rifle. I'm sure the sheer intimidation and noise factor from an automatic rifle would probably make the little hairs on my neck come to attention with the quickness. 
