# Question for anti gun people? home defense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475 "2019-02-13T17:00:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/341 "2019-02-24T21:14:42Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Btw we weren’t talking about overall crimes involving guns , just the risk vs benefit of having one for defense. Specifically the risk of accidents to children. So, I know that you have ignored this question on several occasions, so I expect you to duck it again, you do not see that children having easy access to guns with which to commit suicide to be a problem at all? ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/342 "2019-02-25T01:37:11Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, I know that you have ignored this question on several occasions, so I expect you to duck it again, you do not see that children having easy access to guns with which to commit suicide to be a problem at all? Dogs are far more more likely to result in an injury , I’ve proven that. Depending in your definition of serious well, Again 6k firearm treatments 6k hospitalized from dogs Now requiring medical treatment, 6k firearms 800,000 from dogs, 324,000 in the hospital. To the question I the next post, I’ve also proven that only modality changes with easy access to firearms, not suicide rates. 250k burglaries Yep, statistically more likely to have a serious injury. More dangerous…eh I’m inclined to agree that dogs, given a degree of negligence are somewhat less dangerous than firearms if also given a degree of negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/343 "2019-02-25T01:50:07Z")
Dogs obviously have a more incremental consequence for degrees of negligence IMO ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/344 "2019-02-25T03:10:54Z")
That might very well be an intelligent and acute observation, I have no idea. I’ve had a number of dogs in my life, I haven’t the slightest which of them had more or less incremental consequence. Too many for me, I fold. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/345 "2019-02-25T04:07:05Z")
I’ve had several dogs too, and guns ,neither with any consequence, neither with negligence. Though even if I had been negligent well, I’d be extremely unlikely to have have an injured child from either…so I could say they are both completely safe…anecdotes are convenient that way. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/346 "2019-02-25T04:33:19Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Btw Texas is number 3 in gun ownership, but 40 in suicides … > Virgina is top 5 in gun ownership, but 35 in suicides > > Guess you can’t say guns cause suicides either. > > [US states ranked by suicide rate](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/us-states-ranked-by-suicide-rate.html) I’m a slow learner. I clicked another **Littleman** cite. It won’t happen again. I got suspicious when he mentioned the #3 state in gun ownership. Why not #1? Or the #35 in suicides. Wouldn’t #49 and #50 prove his point better? Can you spell [_cherry-pick_](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/En-au-cherry-pick.ogg)? Using **Littleman** ’s own cite the top 15 states for suicides are 1. Montana — 26 2. Alaska — 25.4 3. Wyoming — 25.2 4. New Mexico — 22.5 5. Utah — 21.8 6. Nevada — 21.4 7. Idaho — 21.3 8. Oklahoma — 20.9 9. Colorado — 20.5 10. South Dakota — 20.5 11. West Virginia — 19.5 12. North Dakota — 19 13. Missouri — 18.3 14. Arkansas — 18.2 15. Kansas — 17.9 No point in checking these states for gun ownership! With few exceptions these are gun-loving Trump-voting states every one. If we say D.C. is not a state, the bottom ten are 16. Hawaii — 12 17. Delaware — 11.5 18. Rhode Island — 11.1 19. Illinois — 10.7 20. California — 10.5 21. Connecticut — 10 22. Maryland — 9.3 23. Massachusetts — 8.7 24. New York — 8.1 25. New Jersey — 7.2 Mostly Democratic gun-grabbing states! @ **Littleman** — I wouldn’t bother hunting for “cites” in future. Expect them to be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/347 "2019-02-25T12:27:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m a slow learner. I clicked another **Littleman** cite. It won’t happen again. > > I got suspicious when he mentioned the #3 state in gun ownership. Why not #1? Or the #35 in suicides. Wouldn’t #49 and #50 prove his point better? Can you spell [_cherry-pick_](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/En-au-cherry-pick.ogg)? > > Using **Littleman** ’s own cite the top 15 states for suicides are > > 1. Montana — 26 > 2. Alaska — 25.4 > 3. Wyoming — 25.2 > 4. New Mexico — 22.5 > 5. Utah — 21.8 > 6. Nevada — 21.4 > 7. Idaho — 21.3 > 8. Oklahoma — 20.9 > 9. Colorado — 20.5 > 10. South Dakota — 20.5 > 11. West Virginia — 19.5 > 12. North Dakota — 19 > 13. Missouri — 18.3 > 14. Arkansas — 18.2 > 15. Kansas — 17.9 > No point in checking these states for gun ownership! With few exceptions these are gun-loving Trump-voting states every one. > If we say D.C. is not a state, the bottom ten are > 16. Hawaii — 12 > 17. Delaware — 11.5 > 18. Rhode Island — 11.1 > 19. Illinois — 10.7 > 20. California — 10.5 > 21. Connecticut — 10 > 22. Maryland — 9.3 > 23. Massachusetts — 8.7 > 24. New York — 8.1 > 25. New Jersey — 7.2 > Mostly Democratic gun-grabbing states! > > @ **Littleman** — I wouldn’t bother hunting for “cites” in future. Expect them to be ignored. Hey look at that, no consistent correlation to suicides, just as I said ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/348 "2019-02-25T13:09:23Z")
But, per usual, let’s ignore gun ownership rates vs sucide rates and come up with a some other idea that fits the narrative rather than what the data says ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/349 "2019-02-25T20:55:14Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > My wife sometimes doesn’t feel safe at night when I’m gone. A home alarm system is a great Valentines Day gift! Thanks for the idea! I was grasping at straws and it was looking to be another chocolates and flowers occasion. IF she regularly carries a bluetooth cell phone, the neatest [‘panic button’ charm](https://www.invisawear.com/) popped onto my facebook feed. She could wear it and in the case of a panic situation, you trigger it and your phone will notify up to 5 numbers. Maybe some other neat stuff as well, you would have to check it out. A bit more romantic than a standard alarm system. And having worked for an alarm company at one time, I can recommend having a monitored system instead of the cheap home depot non-monitored systems. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/350 "2019-02-26T02:37:59Z")
Here, I’ll make it simple; National research counsel says; “States, regions, and countries with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide. There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide, but this association is more modest than the association between gun ownership and gun suicide; it is less consistently observed across time, place, and persons; and the causal relation remains unclear.” Which is why any credible source only claims a correlation between guns and gun sucide, not guns and overall suicide. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/351 "2019-02-26T17:34:37Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Here, I’ll make it simple; > National research counsel says; > “States, regions, and countries with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide. There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide, but this association is more modest than the association between gun ownership and gun suicide; it is less consistently observed across time, place, and persons; and the causal relation remains unclear.” > > Which is why any credible source only claims a correlation between guns and gun sucide, not guns and overall suicide. The part where they said “There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide” just whizzed right by you, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/352 "2019-02-26T19:38:42Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Since you don’t know me from Adam and have never been to my house I’d say you are the one bogarting the ignorance here. My point about hitting a baseball is I have experience connecting with a very small object going at a high speed so I have every confidence I can hit a large object going at a slow speed. The thing about a swinging aluminum baseball bat is there a massive amount of space between us in which to connect and no place on a human body where contact doesn’t severely hurt. You are wrong in just about every aspect of this. First, trying to hit someone in close quarters while adrenaline is flying and the target is charging you is nothing at all like hitting a baseball on a field. Second, unless you have the space and time to do a full windup swing, and your opponent is stupid enough to not get out of the way of your hugely telegraphed swing, you \*might get lucky and hit him hard enough to stop him. But the odds are not in your favor. And if you don’t stop him with the first blow you are not likely to get a second, as a bat is a very hard thing to bring back into play in close quarters. The most likely result of going after an intruder with a bat is that you will hit the person once, just enough to make them outraged and fearful, and therefore more likely to kill you. And if you aim for the head and do manage to get in a full swing, it’s even easier to dodge. Most people have an outrageously distorted idea of easy it is to stop a human being trying to harm you, and also of their ability to perform effectively under tremendous stress. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/353 "2019-02-26T19:47:48Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Why does a question like this have to be measured statistically anyway? One gun injury or death is too many, surely? Almost every activity carried out in large populations results in the occasional death. That includes gardening, tying your sneakers, walking to the street to take out the garbage, having a dog, playing frisbee, gaming on your computer… The idea that a ban is a good idea if it saves even one life is an emotional argument that sounds good and projects the adequate amount of caring and virtue. As a guide to to policy, it’s useless prattle. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/354 "2019-02-26T21:05:27Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You are wrong in just about every aspect of this. First, trying to hit someone in close quarters while adrenaline is flying and the target is charging you is nothing at all like hitting a baseball on a field. Second, unless you have the space and time to do a full windup swing, and your opponent is stupid enough to not get out of the way of your hugely telegraphed swing, you \*might get lucky and hit him hard enough to stop him. But the odds are not in your favor. And if you don’t stop him with the first blow you are not likely to get a second, as a bat is a very hard thing to bring back into play in close quarters. > > The most likely result of going after an intruder with a bat is that you will hit the person once, just enough to make them outraged and fearful, and therefore more likely to kill you. And if you aim for the head and do manage to get in a full swing, it’s even easier to dodge. > > Most people have an outrageously distorted idea of easy it is to stop a human being trying to harm you, and also of their ability to perform effectively under tremendous stress. Tonfa training included tip thrusts, no wind up, and hard to block if you can’t really see a wind up. You can side sweep a thrust, but it is still better than a wind up and hit a home run technique of a bat, but you can still tip thrust a bat. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/355 "2019-02-26T22:36:45Z")
As it happens I have trained with Tonfa. And again, they just suck as a close quarters weapon, or really as any kind of weapon. If you are fighting someone with a sword, Tonfa will protect your forearms and then can be used to strike or hook, but good luck taking down an assailant with one in close quarters. A real close quarters fight for real stakes almost immediately turns into a crazy grappling, punching, biting, hair-pulling exercise. A home invader confonted by a homeowner is going to do one of three things: 1. Run like hell, in which case any weapon that scares the intruder will do and you don’t have to know how to use it. 2. Charge you, in which case you’ve got a second or two to keep your wits about you and land some kind of disabling blow before the intruder is on you. This is a nearly impossible feat, even for trained martial artists. And you then have to hope that the intruder isn’t armed with a club or knife himself. 3. Shoot you with his own gun. Or at least try to. Most burglars who have a gun have probably never even shot it, or if they have they shot it a few times without training. So even in close quarters a gun might miss you, but the noise and flash are definitely going to startle you and if you aren’t used to it completely cause you to freak out and become useless. So the likely result of a confrontation with your Tonfa is that you’ll confront the invader and he’ll either shoot you, or charge you, or run away. I only give you good odds of success in the third case unless you’re a real badass. If I were in close quarters, I’d rather have something like a Kubotan which I could use to repeatedly slam into the person’s pain points or gouge his eyes if we start grappling. But I’d even more rather have a gun. If I were alone in the house, or my family was together in one room, I’d be trying to escape. But if the person is in the house and my kid is sleeping down the hall, I’m not leaving until my kid is safe. That means I’m going to have to let the burglar know I’m willing to fight him if he comes near my family, and hope he leaves. But if he’s there to do harm to one of us, then I’m going to fight him with everything I have until he is no longer a threat. Including killing him if I have to. Once someone breaks into my home, the safety of my family takes priority over anything else, including the life of the intruder. I’ll try to get him to leave, but if he doesn’t then I’m going to assume that it’s going to be a fight to the end - one of us either dead or incapable of continuing. If I don’t have a gun, that probably means an extended, bloody fight with whatever is at hand. I’m trained and 210 lbs, so I like my chances against a random assailant who doesn’t have a gun, but if I were a woman or a small man, I’d have to assume I was just buying time for my family to get away before the guy kills me or at least disables me. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/356 "2019-02-26T22:38:42Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The part where they said “There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide” just whizzed right by you, huh? A cross sectional ecological association that can’t be consistently obvserved over time place and people. That’s just another way of saying it occasionally lines up at random. So, if you squint and turn your head ,sometimes its there. They also go on to say that enough people seemingly buy guns for the purpose of suicide to skew the numbers. Conclusion, just like it says, causal relation is unclear. Though one point that is clear is that the number drops off drastically one week after purchase, which is why a waiting period actually makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/357 "2019-02-26T22:56:53Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > A cross sectional ecological association that can’t be consistently obvserved over time place and people. > That’s just another way of saying it occasionally lines up at random. > > So, if you squint and turn your head ,sometimes its there. > > They also go on to say that enough people seemingly buy guns for the purpose of suicide to skew the numbers. > > Conclusion, just like it says, causal relation is unclear. > > Though one point that is clear is that the number drops off drastically one week after purchase, which is why a waiting period actually makes sense. Literally everything you quote consistently says that there is indeed a correlation between gun ownership and suicide (though a smaller and less blatant one than there is between gun ownership and _gun_ suicide, _obviously_), and your flailing attempts to avoid admitting that fact don’t change the fact I’d rather rather read your cites than your misrepresentations of them. Waiting periods do make sense regarding deterring gun suicides, though, for relatively obvious reasons. That or putting some damn regulations on the things so that they wouldn’t be available to any yahoo with an itchy trigger finger. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/358 "2019-02-26T22:59:07Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > I’m not even going to entertain this zoomorphism hyperbole. > > Yes I can use risk management to reduce the risks to near zero, just as you can. > And yes as I’ve shown many guns are far less likely to be involved in hurting anyone. > > And 1300 Is all child (up to 19 years old) deaths from guns. Unintentional ones amount to about 80. > So, giving the reasoning of , what if your kid has an accident with it and kills theirself as justification for why it’s not a good idea to use in the oh 100,000 (conservatively) defensive gun uses just doesn’t clear. > The benefit in that scenario Is heavily weighted in favor of having vs not having. > > Your thousands of times more likely to protect yourself or family then have your kid have an accident . > > Dogs are great deterrents and companions, I have nothinng against them. In fact they may be one of the two best choices for home defense. Certainly better than pepper spray. I just personally don’t want to feed them or deal with their poop anymore. Dogs are by far the best deterrent from home invasions. Burglars avoid homes with dogs like the plague. They’re looking for soft targets, and a home with a noisy and potentially dangerous dog isn’t it. As far as figuring out whether guns make you more or less safe, you have to also factor in the herd effect, which protects even non gun owners. For example, people have been talking about how burglars don’t like to break into homes when the homeowners are there. That’s very true in the United States, but not so much in the UK. The reason? Burglars don’t want to get shot. So in the U.S., where a homeowner could easily have a gun to shoot you with, you break in when no one is around. But if you absolutely know the homeowner isn’t armed, it can be better to break in while the homeowner is there, because they can take you straight to the valuables. This is especially true in the U.K., where resisting a burglar can easily get a homeowner charged with a violent crime. Burglars know this, and therefore having the owner at home is an advantage. In a place with extensive concealed carry, this also applies to violent crimes outside the home. The U.K. may have fewer gun deaths than the U.S., but its rates of other violent and property crimes are higher. Of course, comparing two different countries is always suspect as the cultures are different, etc. But it seems reasonable to assume that the existence of armed homeowners and citizens carrying guns acts as somewhat of a protection for the community overall, even for non gun owners. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/359 "2019-02-26T23:40:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Literally everything you quote consistently says that there is indeed a correlation between gun ownership and suicide (though a smaller and less blatant one than there is between gun ownership and _gun_ suicide, _obviously_), and your flailing attempts to avoid admitting that fact don’t change the fact I’d rather rather read your cites than your misrepresentations of them. > > Waiting periods do make sense regarding deterring gun suicides, though, for relatively obvious reasons. That or putting some damn regulations on the things so that they wouldn’t be available to any yahoo with an itchy trigger finger. Which is why no credible source will make that claim right? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/360 "2019-02-26T23:46:05Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Which is why no credible source will make that claim right? Peace out, dude. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475.md?page=19)