As reported, an unarmed man in Hartford, Connecticut suffered a home invasion. The armed criminals went through his house looking for valuables, but found that what he owned wasn’t worth their effort. One of the criminals then shot the man to express his displeasure.
This is yet another example of why I have a gun for home defense, and support concealed carry rights, for armed self defense is the best chance that citizen has of saving themselves and their family. Obeying a criminal’s demands will often not prevent that criminal from inflicting harm. The police are almost never able to get there in time, and are not liable for that failure. Worse yet, restrictive gun control laws don’t deter criminals from having a gun, leaving their law abiding victims at an even greater disadvantage.
I guess that gun rights opponents would suggest that this man should have owned more valuable belongings, so as to avoid angering the criminal who shot him?