From Powerline:
When a 79-year-old man heard arguing outside his home, he went outside to investigate. In the front yard, the man discovered his 17-year-old granddaughter being beaten by a 19-year-old male. When the grandfather confronted the suspect, he was threatened with a “stun gun.” The suspect approached the elderly man.
The grandfather warned him to stop, but the suspect continued toward him. The grandfather pulled out a handgun and fired once.
The suspect’s wound proved fatal.
There is a power inequality (that phrase that Progressives love to use to “lowest common denominator” all of us) implicit here. Certainly, there is no way that an average 17 year old gal can successfully defend themselves against even a slightly older guy. Certainly, that teenager could easily subdue an elderly man – he would not need a stun gun (that would just make it easier for the younger man).
What would have happened if “the equalizer” that the senior citizen had was not available? True, one person died – the aggressor. Someone who made a decision to hurt, first one, and then decided to hurt another. To me, the outcome was the consequence of a bad decision – and not the person using a firearm to defend themselves or a loved one.
