A thirty year old man died shielding his son from a gunman who had set ablaze, the duplex in which they lived.  The four-year old son was also killed in the attack.  Inglewood Police Chief Mark Fronterotta said, “The fire had been started before the shooting, and then the suspect came into the house with a painter’s mask on.  The father was in a position of shielding the children as officers came into the scene.”  The mother, another six-year-old boy and a seven-year old girl were also shot.  An eight year old boy was uninjured.  This is clearly not a random act of violence.  To set a house on fire and then to start shooting, demonstrates a clear intention.  Only time will tell if this was an act of violence due to drugs or perhaps a business venture gone bad but someone obviously wanted harm to come to the entire family.  Regardless of the outcome, had the father owned a firearm, he would have been in a position to defend his family.  This story has a bad feel to it and I hope it wasn’t an act of revenge which cost his son his life but defending one’s home, is guaranteed by the Constitution and must be protected.  There is no clearer example of self-defense then someone with bad intentions enters your home.  The right to bare arms is protected by the Constitution but more importantly, that right can save lives.  It’s important to point this out because rarely do stories break in the news where someone protected themselves using a sidearm.  Only when there is a negative story regarding firearms, do we read about it.  That’s unfair and unjustified.  Protecting one’s family is not only a right, but a responsibility.