Paladin said:
How sad is it that a law-abiding citizen has to use a sword in self-defense and a scumbag criminal gets to use a gun? It should be the other way around. Too bad he didn't run him through... Then again, if he had - he'd have probably gotten sued! In fact I hope the homeowner doesn't get sued by the criminal for "mental anguish."
Not that I want this to get political (for many, many reasons), BUT...
I see no reason why the homeowner could not have had a gun if he wanted one. I don't know what California's gun control laws are like, but I don't believe there's any state in the USA where it is impossible to obtain a gun legally. There may be waiting periods, licensing fees, mountains of paperwork and red tape before and after you buy the thing and more to come if you ever use it, but you can get one.
In addition, I failed to notice the part of the article (at least this one) where the homeowner lamented his lack of a gun. Perhaps you could point it out to me?
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with guns, and yes, sometimes it's for no good reason and it's just a personality quirk. I personally would gladly use a sword over a gun. Like I said - personality quirk. So maybe this homeowner was like me in that regard. Maybe he had some other reason for using a sword. Maybe the sword was closer than his Colt .45. The article just doesn't go into that.
So, given that we just don't have these facts, I would ask that we all focus on the eternal coolness of a guy defending his home with some good old-fashioned steel rather than turn this into a meaningless and all-too-lockable debate about gun control. And, moderators, if my comments here are too political, I do apologize; let me know and I shall remove them with all possible haste.
