But he WAS carrying a sidearm and he DID protect himself and his child from an impending mauling by a known aggressive dog.    You don't know what the timeframe was, and it's real easy to sit there and quarterback from your chair.

Whining about a legally carried firearm being used in self defense against a badly training animal is a bizarre position to take.

I suppose you'd have been happy to read about a 3 year old child whose face was slashed by the dog instead?    Or severe bites & slashes to the parent engaging in unarmed combat as he tries to protect his kid?    As long as those naughty firearms weren't involved, right?