According to progressive philosophy, a 92-year-old man in San Jacinto deserves to be dead right now.
His crime? Defending himself. So what happened?
Around noon, the unnamed nonagenarian heard a commotion at his front door: some twentysomething punk trying to break it down with an ax.
However, he failed to break it down. Instead, he went after the old man through the window. The senior citizen fired a single shot, causing the intruder to drop his ax and flee.
There is no evidence to determine if the man was struck by the bullet.
Some of you may be questioning why we pigeonhole the liberal/progressive stance as wanting this man to die. Valid question. We will reply by pointing out the “guns are pure evil” camp, who hold it as an article of faith that there is NO reason for ANY non-police/non-military person to own a gun.
There are other, less extreme, who simply believe that the world would be a safer place if firearms were unavailable to the non-military/non-law enforcement simply as a means to deprive criminals of sources of weapons through theft or straw-purchase. Thereby eliminating the need for the average, law-abiding citizen to possess firearms and preventing the psychological “snap” that every gun owner is 100% guaranteed to experience, turning his suburban home into a blood-soaked hellscape.
The problem with this line of thought is that it is racist, sexist, and ageist.
When the left talks about gun owners, it is, invariably, a caricature of a middle-aged, middle-to-lower income Caucasian male, about 6 feet tall, around 220 pounds, between the ages of 35 and 65, wearing camouflage or a t-shirt with a conservative bon mot on it.
And that’s EXACTLY what you were picturing, wasn’t it?
While there are many gun owners who fit that bill, there are many who don’t, as documented in this blog.
If stereotypes are wrong and need to be eliminated, then why must this one remain?