Homelessness is a big problem here in the US once again. People ignored it for years, but now it’s a massive issue in many of our urban centers.
And those who live on the streets have a particularly rough time. For one, well, they live on the streets. That would be plenty.
However, because of their situation, many people figure they’re prime targets for any manner of degradation.
It seems that’s true among the homeless themselves. Unfortunately for one guy, though, he found out that the other guy wasn’t quite the defenseless target he’d hoped.
From our friends at The Truth About Guns:
A late Saturday afternoon argument over food at an Atlanta location that aids the homeless with meals, medical services, and additional help give new meaning to the term “food fight.” Events spun quickly out of control when one man involved in the dispute tried to stick it to the other guy, literally, according to several news reports out of the area.
An un-named 32-year-old man became so angered during the argument at the Gateway Center, he retrieved a large stick apparently lying nearby and began beating another man. The other guy may not have had a home, but he did have a gun
The victim then pulled a firearm and shot the man.
When police arrived, they found the attacker with wounds in both arms. The two men were taken to a hospital for treatment.
Law enforcement said the victim wouldn’t be charged as this was a clear case of self-defense.
I’m glad to see it, too, because let’s be honest, a large stick is also a term for a club. People have been killed by such primitive weapons since the dawn of man. It is most definitely a weapon and I’m glad the victim had the means to defend himself.
TTAG noted in their headline that just because you’re homeless, you don’t forfeit your Second Amendment rights, and I’m in complete and total agreement. Most homeless folks don’t have the resources to own a gun but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do so. Plus, people generally don’t start out homeless. Someone who had a home and lost it due to various circumstances may have opted to hold onto their firearm for protection.
Pretty smart decision, if that was the case in this instance because the victim here clearly needed it.
The right to keep and bear arms exists for a reason, one of those is so we can defend ourselves from violent attacks. In the Founders’ day, that might mean attacks from native warbands whereas today it might mean stopping some guy who lives in a cardboard box from beating you to death with a stick.
The details are irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the good guy with a gun isn’t dead because he was a good guy with a gun.
That’s something the anti-gunners will never actually get through their heads. I suppose they figure the victim here should have just hugged it out with his attacker or something.