It is open to debate, but it's not relevant to the topic, as it wasn't about the shooter's own home. Moreover, I certainly wouldn't come to Indianapolis unarmed.
It boils down to abstracting in one direction or the other. On one hand, you can abstract a particular instance in favor of calling it paranoia - in which case, why own guns for defense at all? If I have to carry in my car, I should change my route. To work, I should find a new job. And so forth.
The other direction to abstract is what I'd call the airbag argument. Do I plan to crash my car? No. Is it likely I will? The chance may indeed be astronomically small if I am very careful, avoid traffic and hazards, drive defensively, etc. But in the event that those long odds play out, I certainly wouldn't want to be without an airbag. No matter how secure your house is, no matter how good the neighborhood is, there is no immunity. Folks I know on one of the most quiet, expensive, homogeneous blocks in the Chicago suburbs came home to a burglary late last year. There is no perfect safety.
I also think it's detrimental to ever question anyone's good faith motives on the subject. Creating or supporting stigmas like that is the exact divide-and-conquer strategy the antis have been relying on for years now to chip away at gun rights. Casting someone in a critical light for behaving within the bounds of the law only lowers the barriers to broadening that law and further constricting the rights it addresses.
To the original post, good for this guy. When I saw how long the video was, I thought "I'll never make it through this." But it was gripping. He's a great guy and I hope he can spend the remainder of his life in peace knowing he's been a good example of how to act in tough circumstances, protected the people he cares about, and sent a message to lowlifes who would prey on those they consider weak.
