While the anti-gun zealots are going on and on and on about how no one needs this gun or that gun, but let’s remember that at the heart of the issue is that guns save lives. Every day, we see countless examples of people defending themselves with guns, especially in cases when it’s clear they would be unable to defend themselves otherwise.

For example, an elderly gentleman from Tennessee.

An elderly homeowner shot and killed one of three suspects after he was robbed and assaulted, according to the Kentucky State Police.

The story came together after authorities say the shooting victim, 46-year-old Timothy Roper, showed up to the Jackson Purchase Medical Center at 9:30 p.m.

Roper died at the hospital, police said.

An investigation revealed he was one of three suspects who forced their way into a home on McNeil Road in Boaz late Monday night.

The homeowner, an elderly man, was reportedly robbed and assaulted before he shot Roper in the upper torso.

Roper’s two alleged accomplices, Miranda Murphy and Joshua White, were ultiamtely arrested the following night on Tuesday by Kentucky State Police.

The two suspects were charged with complicity to commit first-degree burglary and complicity to commit first-degree robbery. Murphy was also charged with possession of meth. (Shocking, I know. Meth users never do anything violent or illegal. [This is sarcasm for the humor impaired.])

Yet there are people who would rather see this elderly man beaten and helpless before the onslaught these people allegedly visited on him.

No amount of hand-to-hand self-defense training is going to make it safe for an elderly individual to take on three determined, aggressive assailants. What was the old guy supposed to do? Offer a stern lecture?

Guns are equalizers. They allow an elderly individual to hold his own against more numerous, more aggressive attackers who want to hurt him or her severely. They neutralizing someone’s speed or strength advantage, an advantage that typically only exists when fighting hand-to-hand.

Just like that, an elderly man was able to defend himself from three violent attackers.

Meanwhile, there are those who will talk about “common sense” gun control measure that all lead to the same place: a disarmed populace.

They’d rather see this man dead than victorious. They’d rather see a woman raped and brutalized rather than have her put a 9mm round right between the attacker’s eyes. They’d rather give the advantage to larger, stronger, more aggressive criminals. After all, so long as there are no guns, it’s all good, right?

Not that there will ever be an America without guns. Criminals will get them, and they will use them.

But even if the gun grabbers could grab them all, they still give the advantage to the criminals. How can people with semi-functional brains–they can log into Twitter and Facebook, after all, so it has to work on some level–not see that?

Or do they see it and think they can somehow legislate all that behavior away too? If so, they’re even dumber than I thought.

Hat tip: Gun Watch