An 87-year-old gentleman in Baldwin Hills, California owns a firearm for protection. Two intruders broke a window in his house and entered the house.
When he heard the window break, Jack G. retrieved his firearm and went into his hallway. He feared for his life and fired, severely wounding one of the intruders. The second intruder fled.
The wounded crook will be arrested as soon as he is well enough to be released from the hospital and taken to jail.
Only in California would you see this as the ending of the news report (emphasis added): “who was acting in self defense, was not expected to be charged with any crime.”
He was defending himself! The crooks should be glad they were not permanently stopped in their tracks.
That’s a good question. Another good question isn’t about the murder rate dropping to zero, but would near total gun ownership have higher or lower crime than near zero gun ownership.
Oh and before you call me a liberal, hippie, commie, smart @$$, jerk face, or whatever else you’ve got I’m against gun control. It’s a big thing that my fellow liabral-minded people disagree with me strongly about. I don’t like guns. I don’t want to own guns. I don’t think guns provide the protections that many advocates claim that they do. However, you are free to own an entire arsenal if you’d like. Nobody should stop you from doing that. The whole point of gun control, allegedly, is to stop people from irresponsibly and illegally owning guns. It isn’t working. You’re just hurting the people that honestly and respectfully follow the laws of the land. The people that commit crimes with guns are using guns that were obtained through illegal means. You can take them away until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t work.