Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Charles Darwin is Our Friend Edition


“Investigators said 39-year-old Stephen Westbrook went to a home in Lancaster on Wednesday night looking to rob someone of their drugs,” reports. “Deputies say 25-year-old Javon Belk started firing at Westbrook during the robbery, and he shot back. Both men were struck and killed. Sheriff Barry Faile says both of the dead men had long histories of violent crimes and drug charges. He says when someone leads a life of crime and drugs, tragedies like this are bound to occur.” And that’s a bad thing?


  1. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Oh well… I am guessing he was targeted from the get go because the intruder knew he probably had drugs. He wasn’t just some random house.

  2. avatar Loyd says:

    This must be one of those “victim-less crimes” people are always talking about.

    1. avatar Derek says:

      I believe the term is “Self Correcting Problem” 😈

  3. avatar LeftShooter says:

    Two bad actors and two (at least) illegal guns off the street. So far, so good. I’d like to know how they got the guns, though.

  4. avatar Cody says:

    Lemme get this straight. The government is bad when it takes away our second amendment rights, but it is legit when ignoring one’s “liberty and pursuit of happiness” when drugs are involved. The victim here is the guy that was attacked because of the things he owned. Gold, money, TV’s, drugs, does it really matter? Someone came in, tried to steal his stuff, and snuffed him out.

    1. avatar Derek says:

      Hooray for the War On (Some) Drugs.

      However, to be fair, “Sheriff Barry Faile says both of the dead men had long histories of violent crimes…””

      1. avatar Cody says:

        Good point. I missed that. Darwin wins.

        1. avatar Parthenon says:

          Not so fast! Are we now say that its okay to rob someone as long as they have a history of violent crime?

      2. avatar Cody says:

        Good point. Although the read the article reads, it’s not clear they both had violent crimes on their records.

  5. avatar Derek says:

    Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Streets Cleaning Themselves Edition*
    *Fixed 🙂

  6. avatar KYgunner says:

    The epitome of a win-win situation?

  7. avatar AZRon says:

    I’ve read the article 40 times and have yet to find the tragedy that Sheriff Fail speaks of.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The guns are going to the crusher. That may not be a tragedy but it still makes me sad.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      Maybe the “tragedy” is that this kind of news exposes how little the cops can do to “protect” people.

  8. avatar virtualjohn says:

    Two down, uncounted to go.
    It is past time to thin the herd.

  9. avatar Silver says:

    Funny thing is the antis will count this in their statistics list of “gun violence” that law-abiding gun-owners commit.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      I can see Mike B’s post now.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        let me try:
        “These two think just like all of you other gun owners, you are all no different and act the same”

        Is that general and broad enough for mikeb203000?

  10. avatar Accur81 says:

    Violence solves two more problems…

  11. avatar Charlie says:

    Tyjuan? Javon? Trayvon? Holy Buddha what happened to real names?

    Red Dead Redemption…good choice.

  12. avatar Scuba Steve says:

    Yippee Ki Yay . . .Mother F#%@$*!!!!!!

  13. avatar Ron says:

    At least the home owner stood up to the home invader and in the process proved that he’s a man.
    A dead man.

    Thank God for that law preventing paroled felons from possessing guns.

  14. avatar Tom says:

    He says when someone leads a life of crime and drugs, wonderful things like this are bound to occur.” Fixed it!

  15. avatar DaveL says:

    This reminds me of a case in Michigan. Two groups of guys had apparently arranged to meet so that one could sell the other some marijuana. Now, the sellers didn’t actually have any marijuana, but they did have guns, and their plan was to hold the buyers at gunpoint and take their money. The problem being that the buyers didn’t actually have any money. However, they did have guns, and their plan was to hold the sellers at gunpoint and take their marijuana. So what actually ended up happening is they met each other by appointment to rob each other of wealth neither of them had.

    Sometimes reality imitates sketch comedy.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      So in the end some one ended up with more guns.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email