A Florida man used a handgun to save himself and his father from a pair of violent home invaders who kicked in their front door.
Police say that 69 year old Peter Gilmore was at his Port Charlotte, FL home, along with his 25 year old son James. At about 10 PM, there was a knock on the front door, which Peter went to answer. A pair of masked home invaders, armed with a knife and a tire iron, are said to have kicked the door open and rushed inside. One of the robbers reportedly held a large knife to Peter's face, and threatened to kill him. James reportedly ran to his father's bedroom, where they kept their firearms, with the tire iron wielding intruder in hot pursuit. After grabbing a handgun and pointing it at the intruder, James told the intruder to leave, at which point the criminal refused and hit him in the head with a tire iron, according to police. James then reportedly shot the violent home invader in the stomach, prompting him and his accomplice to flee. Police reportedly apprehended both suspects, Keith Sowers and Joshua Eugene Becerril, shortly after the home invasion. The injured suspect, Sowers, was listed in serious condition but is expected to live to face charges.
Once again, gun ownership has allowed a law abiding citizen to defend himself (and his father) against a pair of violent criminals. Had these residents not been armed, the 69 year old father could have been stabbed to death, and his 25 year old son could have been beaten to death by criminals who cared more about stealing valuables than the lives and safety of their victims. Luckily, these crime victims had the foresight to be armed for self defense, and as a result they survived and the suspects are in police custody.
I would also like to note the restraint shown by the home invasion victim. Those opposed to gun rights like to suggest that armed citizens who fire in self defense are blood thirsty killers just looking for an excuse to take a life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, such armed citizens fire as a last resort, in order to protect themselves and their families from an imminent threat. As another example, this disabled veteran, who had a concealed carry permit, decided to comply with a robber’s demands for his wallet instead of shooting in self defense. It was only when the robber continued to advance on him while brandishing a metal pipe that the citizen drew his gun and fired in self defense. Similarly, this pizza delivery driver handed over his money and tried to back away, and only drew his gun and fired in self defense after the violent robber followed him and continued to threaten his life. In the current case, as well as those two examples, armed citizens risked their lives by hesitating, in an attempt to avoid having to shooting a violent attacker. Note that I’m not suggesting that citizens should or must hesitate the way that these citizens did; instead, my only point is that armed citizens are not the violence-prone individuals that anti gun groups suggest them to be.