# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/81 "2019-02-13T19:28:43Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Also, before you put too much stock in bats and other sticks, why don’t you go read a bit about “the spirit of the bayonet?” I doubt you’ll bother, but maybe it will clarify for you that use of melee weapons in close quarters isn’t something that even soldiers do without intensive training aimed specifically at making them aggressive in such combat. I have hit things with bats many times, most of them were baseballs much smaller than a human torso. I have never shot anyone, which horror I can only image. It disturbs me some gun advocates seem so cavalier about the possiblity of shooting a home invader. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/82 "2019-02-13T19:29:29Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Would you rather an elderly lady have a bat or a gun to confront a home invader/rapist? > > Also, before you put too much stock in bats and other sticks, why don’t you go read a bit about “the spirit of the bayonet?” I doubt you’ll bother, but maybe it will clarify for you that use of melee weapons in close quarters isn’t something that even soldiers do without intensive training aimed specifically at making them aggressive in such combat. I’m just noting that you seem to suggest gun users require neither skill nor strength nor courage. “I doubt you’ll bother”? :rolleyes: come on, dude. I completely understand that, just like [some] gun owners will never be as effective at stopping the bad guys as they imagine they will be in their fantasies, so too will [some] users of baseball bats and rolling pins be less effective at stopping bad guys as they imagine. But if you’re going to use rhetoric to minimize the effectiveness of non-gun defense methods as an argument for gun use, I’m going to call you on it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/83 "2019-02-13T19:29:32Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Would you rather an elderly lady have a bat or a gun to confront a home invader/rapist? How much training has she had? How good is her eyesight? How good is her hearing? How quickly can she get her bearings if she is woken suddenly? What are her reflexes like? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/84 "2019-02-13T19:32:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Who should pay for, and who should carry out, this society-wide gun training? It seems like you may think I’m proposing some government-mandated training for everyone. I’m not. I said “I wish everyone was better trained.” In the case of police, the departments, or the individual officers themselves, could pursue more rigorous training. In the case of gun owners, they themselves can “pay for” additional training and it can be carried out by various firearm instructors / training schools that offer their services. In the case of non-LEO & non-gun-owning private citizen, I’d suggest they reach out to the NRA to see if there’s some “Eddie Eagle” training scheduled in their area. Or [watch YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho36vonT3Rw). ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/85 "2019-02-13T19:36:06Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Would you rather an elderly lady have a bat or a gun to confront a home invader/rapist? One problem with those kinds of things is that she has to be awake and mobile to use them. What if she’s asleep and the intruder is silent? Both the bat and gun will sit passively and not do anything. A better choice for an elderly lady could be a dog. For someone living alone, it can provide companionship and acts as a great early-warning system for many dangerous situations. The barking will deter most intruders. And a dog has a huge advantage that she doesn’t have to be awake. She can be asleep, incapacitated, confused, flustered, stumbling in the dark, etc. and her dog will still be able to competently identify and deter threats. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/86 "2019-02-13T19:36:24Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Bash the intruder with any suitable nearby makeshift object-weapon, and holler and make a lot of noise. I live in a crowded apartment complex and the noise would likely wake up the neighbors, who might call for help. I can’t remember the name of the woman who was raped on a New York street and screamed all the time, but no one helped. “Kitty” somebody? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/87 "2019-02-13T19:37:53Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Question: Lets say your at home and someone is outside trying to break down your door and get in to either rob or hurt you. Yes, you can and should dial 911 (assuming your phone is working) but you need protection NOW. > > What would you do since you dont own a firearm? When this situation arose in my household (twice!) we responded the first time with a crossbow and the second time with a garden shovel. In the first instance the intruder ran away. In the second, while my spouse did not manage to knock him unconscious he sure did addle him enough that the guy fell backward on to the front parking area. We then blocked the door and called the police. > [@XT](#): > > I’m not anti-gun, but ‘run away’ strikes me as a viable alternative in most circumstances. Regrettably, my spouse was disabled and physically unable to run. Which might have something to do with him having taken a number of self-defense classes when young, so he would be able to defend himself if necessary given escape was so difficult for him. In addition to the crossbow and the garden shovel the household also had a number of other possible improvised weapons, like sledgehammers, quite a few knives, and so forth. Happy to say I now live in a somewhat better part of town, and the prior location definitely was circling the drain. I heartily agree that retreat is usually the best option. When I’ve been in dangerous situations in my life my first response is to run away if at all possible. But I gather the OP wanted to know what you would do if you couldn’t run away. Yes, hiding is a good choice, too, but that’s not always an option, either. I’d prefer not to commit violence against another human being but if I’m attacked I have no moral qualms about using force to defend myself if there is no other alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/88 "2019-02-13T19:39:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, they didn’t have the right to own slaves. Good grief. You don’t understand the difference between a right and something being legal. And you clearly don’t have a very good grasp on even the ‘being legal’ part of the discussion, since even when slavery was legal (which was right there in what you quoted), you couldn’t just randomly shoot black people because you were white. > > Sadly, I don’t believe your ignorance has been fought. ☹ They didn’t have the constitutionally guaranteed right to own slaves (although the constitution DID guarantee that the federal government would pass no laws against slavery for quite some time). The Bill of Rights does not contain ALL of our rights, though. From the second definition of [legal right:](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal%20right) Definition of legal right > [@](#): > > 1a : a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it > **b : the interest in a claim which is recognized by and protected by sanctions of law imposed by a state, which enables one to possess property or to engage in some transaction or course of conduct or to compel some other person to so engage or to refrain from some course of conduct under certain circumstances, and for the infringement of which claim the state provides a remedy in its courts of justice** > 2 : the aggregate of the capacities, powers, liberties, and privileges by which a claim is secured > 3 : a capacity of asserting a legally recognized claim > — compare LEGAL DUTY > 4 : a right cognizable in a common-law court as distinguished from a court having jurisdiction in equity In the United State’s early history, slave owners pretty clearly DID have a right to own slaves. They exercised their property rights over fellow human beings, such as in the Dred Scott decision, where it was ruled that it would be unconstitutional to “improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property”. I think it’s absolutely laughable that people try to portray gun ownership as a human rights issue. I get that it’s in the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t make it sacred. Your right to own a gun shouldn’t get to trump other people’s right to life (which is the 3rd right recognized by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and also recognized in the constitution: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the _preservation of life_, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/89 "2019-02-13T19:40:50Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I can’t remember the name of the woman who was raped on a New York street and screamed all the time, but no one helped. “Kitty” somebody? It was as recent as 55 years ago, [and that isn’t exactly what happened.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/90 "2019-02-13T19:43:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It seems like you may think I’m proposing some government-mandated training for everyone. I’m not. I said “I wish everyone was better trained.” In the case of police, the departments, or the individual officers themselves, could pursue more rigorous training. In the case of gun owners, they themselves can “pay for” additional training and it can be carried out by various firearm instructors / training schools that offer their services. In the case of non-LEO & non-gun-owning private citizen, I’d suggest they reach out to the NRA to see if there’s some “Eddie Eagle” training scheduled in their area. Or [watch YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho36vonT3Rw). Gotcha. I think you’ve highlighted an interesting difference between liberals and conservatives. We libs see a problem and try to fix it, even if some of the ideas are pretty out there, like universal basic income. But at least there’s a sense of activism. For conservatives, the answer to pretty much all problems seems to be increasingly “hopes and prayers, everyone!” I guess the firearms safety suggestion you have is more or less in the same category. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/91 "2019-02-13T19:45:21Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I can’t remember the name of the woman who was raped on a New York street and screamed all the time, but no one helped. “Kitty” somebody? Kitty Genovese, who was raped and murdered in 1964. The well-known _New York Times_ story from the time, which reported that dozens of witnesses ignored her screams, was later found to have been substantially inaccurate. > **[Murder of Kitty Genovese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Accuracy_of_original_reports)** > > In the early hours of March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old bartender, was raped and stabbed outside the apartment building where she lived in the Kew Gardens neighborhood of Queens, New York, United States. Two weeks after the murder, The New York Times published an article erroneously claiming that thirty-eight witnesses saw or heard the attack, and that none of them called the police or came to her aid. The incident prompted inquiries into what became known as the bystander Research... _Edit: ninja’d by Czarcasm._ ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/92 "2019-02-13T19:46:35Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I can’t remember the name of the woman who was raped on a New York street and screamed all the time, but no one helped. “Kitty” somebody? [Kitty Genovese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese) More recent investigative journalism has cast doubt on the original report that 38 witnesses observed the attack and did nothing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/93 "2019-02-13T19:48:43Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > They didn’t have the constitutionally guaranteed right to own slaves (although the constitution DID guarantee that the federal government would pass no laws against slavery for quite some time). The Bill of Rights does not contain ALL of our rights, though. > > From the second definition of [legal right:](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal%20right) > Definition of legal right > > In the United State’s early history, slave owners pretty clearly DID have a right to own slaves. They exercised their property rights over fellow human beings, such as in the Dred Scott decision, where it was ruled that it would be unconstitutional to “improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property”. > > I think it’s absolutely laughable that people try to portray gun ownership as a human rights issue. I get that it’s in the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t make it sacred. Your right to own a gun shouldn’t get to trump other people’s right to life (which is the 3rd right recognized by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and also recognized in the constitution: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the _preservation of life_, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness). You were talking about taking away the right to keep and bear arms, so that was the context of the discussion. I assume you’ve now realized how stupid your argument was, and are backtracking. You seem to be, now, trying to equate being legal with having a ‘right’. Even if we go with that, you are STILL wrong…and your ignorance is still un-fought, since you are fighting it by trying to handwave and dance about. Randomly shooting a black person because you were white wasn’t either a ‘right’, an actual right, or legal in all circumstance. You were, are, and continue to be wrong. Going into a school to swear at the kids was never a ‘right’, an actual right, or legal in all cases. Again…you were, are and continue to be wrong. Driving contrary to the legal dictates was never a ‘right’, a right or legal in all cases…in fact, it’s specifically NOT legal. Slavery wasn’t a right, it was legal, so now that you’ve shifted goalposts I might have given you that one, since you are obviously using your own definition of ‘right’ to mean whatever you want it to mean to get out of this argument, but that’s not what you said…and what you said…was…is…and continues to be…wrong. Seriously, just admit you were and are wrong, that it was a fucking stupid thing to say and go on with the discussion. Or not. I believe I’ve beaten this dead horse enough mid-stream after checking it’s teeth to see if it’s a good deal AND switching mounts halfway across… ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/94 "2019-02-13T19:50:14Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Kitty Genovese, who was raped and murdered in 1964. The well-known _New York Times_ story from the time, which reported that dozens of witnesses ignored her screams, was later found to have been substantially inaccurate. > > [Murder of Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Accuracy_of_original_reports) > > _Edit: ninja’d by Czarcasm._ Thanks! That was even cited in Psychology texts. I am glad to learn that it is inaccurate. Broom stick, was either of those guys armed? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/95 "2019-02-13T19:55:21Z")
Guns are valuable and easy to fence, and [3% of Americans own 50% of the guns](https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/). That would be a great score. So I wonder if there has ever been a study revealing gun ownership making it MORE likely they will get burglarized. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/96 "2019-02-13T19:58:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How do you distinguish between an intruder that is trying to steal your stuff vs one that is trying to hurt you? Well, in our two cases… Spouse surprised a would-be truck thief in the driveway (spouse was already suspicious, hence carrying a crossbow). OK, the guy was after the truck… but when he saw Mr. Broomstick he left off with trying to jimmy the door of the truck, advanced on Mr. Broomstick with a very long knife, while saying “I"m going it f\*\*\* you up.” or something along those lines (it has been a few years since it happened). The whole “advancing with a long knife while speaking verbal threats” indicated to us that the Bad Guy was no longer interested in our stuff and now interested in harming us. Second case was a guy who was both drunk and high somehow or other mistaking our door for that of the bar next door, or something - he was pounding on our door and demanding to be let in the bar. The spouse assumed he was lost or something and attempted to direct him next door. I was in another room but somehow or other the door was opened, the Bad Guy tried to force his way in, fists were swinging, verbal threats of violence and (for me) rape, and that’s when the spouse picked up the garden shovel which I had left by the door and whacked the guy full in the face with it a couple times. Truthfully, it’s hard to say [_what_ this guy’s state of mind was, but he sure seemed more of a threat to the people inside than someone intent on theft. Anyhow, like I said, once we beat him off we blocked the door and called the cops, who showed up pretty promptly. The guy apparently passed out in the back of the squad on the way to jail and when they woke him up he had no memory of what had happened and couldn’t figure out why his face was bruised up and bleeding. And that, boys and girls, is why you shouldn’t mix alcohol and drugs. So… in both cases there was a pretty clear threat of physical violence towards people, and that’s sort of how you know. If you surprise a guy in your home and he just runs off (with or without dropping some of your stuff) he’s just a thief. If, when you surprise him, he comes at you either speaking threats or actually taking a swing at you or brandishing a weapon that’s a sign that the person may soon be trying to hurt you. And sometimes a person is _just_ interested in Doing Bad Things. Back when I lived in Chicago there was a “back door rapist” - during a hot summer when people would leave their heavy doors open and have just a screen door on the kitchen entrance this guy would cut the screen with a knife, enter, the home, and rape whatever women he could find inside and (apparently) never took anything. That ended when he attempted to attack a woman in a kitchen when she was cutting up (if I recall correctly) a chicken. She used her butcher knife on him. The police managed to find him before he bled out by following the blood trail down the fire escape steps and down the alley to where he had collapsed. So, yeah - someone busting through your back door and ignoring your possessions while attempting to remove your clothes and get physical is _probably_ not a thief but rather someone intent on harming the occupant(s) of the house. **TL : DR - if he grabs stuff and runs, he’s a theif. If he ignores your stuff and advances on you the likelihood he intends to harm you has just gone up significantly.** ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/97 "2019-02-13T20:02:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > If you live in an apartment that has only one exit then you are in a death trap anyway. What will you do if there is a fire that blocks your one door? Go out the back window. I’ll take a possible broken leg over death by fire any day. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/98 "2019-02-13T20:04:04Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Go out the back window. I’ll take a possible broken leg over death by fire any day. A back window presumes (or demonstrates) that there is, in fact, a second exit. Which I think is mandatory in most housing codes. But, yeah, that’s exactly the right answer…and probably the right answer if someone is trying to break in as well. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/99 "2019-02-13T20:05:22Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You were talking about taking away the right to keep and bear arms, so that was the context of the discussion. I assume you’ve now realized how stupid your argument was, and are backtracking. You seem to be, now, trying to equate being legal with having a ‘right’. Even if we go with that, you are STILL wrong…and your ignorance is still un-fought, since you are fighting it by trying to handwave and dance about. Randomly shooting a black person because you were white wasn’t either a ‘right’, an actual right, or legal in all circumstance. You were, are, and continue to be wrong. Going into a school to swear at the kids was never a ‘right’, an actual right, or legal in all cases. Again…you were, are and continue to be wrong. Driving contrary to the legal dictates was never a ‘right’, a right or legal in all cases…in fact, it’s specifically NOT legal. > > Slavery wasn’t a right, it was legal, so now that you’ve shifted goalposts I might have given you that one, since you are obviously using your own definition of ‘right’ to mean whatever you want it to mean to get out of this argument, but that’s not what you said…and what you said…was…is…and continues to be…wrong. > > Seriously, just admit you were and are wrong, that it was a fucking stupid thing to say and go on with the discussion. Or not. I believe I’ve beaten this dead horse enough mid-stream after checking it’s teeth to see if it’s a good deal AND switching mounts halfway across… If it makes you feel better, then sure, none of those were actual rights. They’re still limits on freedom, and very good limits on freedom. What makes gun ownership different? That the founding fathers considered it important enough to put into the bill of rights? In case you didn’t notice, the founding fathers lived 250 years ago, and had quite a few ideas we find abhorrent. There’s nothing sacred about the word “right”, or about the constitution. If it’s sacred to you, then fine – you win – taking away your “right” to bear arms is different from stopping you from driving the wrong way on the freeway, because you were never allowed to do one, but 250 years ago the people who founded this country decided to grant you that right. Well, maybe in their context, that was the right thing to do. In 2019, gun ownership doesn’t benefit society, it hurts it, and it’s time to remove this so-called “right”. But practically speaking, what’s the difference between repealing the second amendment, making it illegal to buy guns; or banning slavery, making it illegal to own slaves? Both involve changing the law to make something that was once acceptable unacceptable. Different or not, that “right” needs to be taken away. And before you go off about tyrants again, other nations provide their citizens with other rights. According to Chapter III, Article 29 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, welfare is a “right”: > [@](#): > > Article 29 [Welfare benefits] is a universal right of all to enjoy social insurance or other forms of security for retirement, unemployment, old-age disability, lack of guardianship, being a wayfarer, accident and the need for health and treatment services and medical care. The government, in accordance with the laws and by drawing on national revenues, is required to provide such insurance and economic protection to each and every citizen of the country. So either a “right” is something special and the United States is a terrible country for not providing this basic “right” that Iran provides, or just because a state calls something a “right” doesn’t mean it’s any more important or sacred than any other law, and that “right” should be judged on its own merits. I judge the “right to bear arms” on its own merits, and find it to cause far more harm than good. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475/100 "2019-02-13T20:06:32Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Question: Lets say your at home and someone is outside trying to break down your door and get in to either rob or hurt you. Yes, you can and should dial 911 (assuming your phone is working) but you need protection NOW. > > What would you do since you dont own a firearm? Hide, run away, if it comes down to needing to fight use a knife. I’m as anti gun as they get, but the anti gun argument is not “guns are not useful for home defense” it’s “being slightly safer on the infinitesimal chance you get robbed is not worth the ever present and constant danger of having a gun in your home”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-anti-gun-people-home-defense/829475.md?page=6)