“…but cases such as an attempted Valentine’s Day robbery in Ontario, California, [is] evidence that more guns in the right hands would reduce the ill effects of armed criminals.”
When a man tried to break into the home of this California resident early on Valentine’s Day morning, the homeowner shot the intruder while his wife dialed 911 to report both the intrusion and the shooting. The Ontario California police responded quickly, but not before three unfortunate events took place.
- First, the intruder arrived and attempted to invade this property. He was on the property – before the police arrived
- Secondly, the homeowner and would-be intruder engaged in physical confrontation – before police arrived.
- Thirdly, the intruder was shot in self-defense and to protect his family who was inside the home – before police arrived.
The residents availed themselves of the service of 911. And the city police responded immediately in a timely manner as possible. There can be no argument that the homeowner or the local law officers acted wrongly. But if this homeowner had waited until the policemen arrived to assist him, it might have been too late. This homeowner, acting upon his constitutional right according to the Second Amendment to protect his home and his family. Without the protection of the constitution, the ‘might-have-happened’ is literally unthinkable.
By the time the police arrived, the criminal was down and lying near the entrance of the home. He was later identified by Officer Jorge Ramirez of the Ontario Police Department as a 26-year-old male, (name withheld at the time of this writing).
Here’s the thing that frustrates the anti-gun contingency:
- The shooter was not arrested.
- The general public was close to unanimously in favor of the home owner’s reaction.
Reaction from Los Angeles Times readers was almost unanimously supportive of the armed homeowners, though a few criticized a perceived bias in the way the newspaper covered the story.
- “Should be the top story, not buried in the back,” one commentator wrote.
- “Only shootings when innocent people are killed get the story front-and-center,” another reader responded.
- “Using guns appropriately doesn’t fit the Times’ narrative.”
Why do these stories get buried in news reporting? Because they are indisputable proof that the Second Amendment is necessary to the fulfillment of the constitution if the productive, law-abiding people of this great country are to continue to pursue life and liberty.
We send a big “thank you” to Western Journalism for this great story.
Please SHARE with all your family & friends.