# Trying to understand the 'home defense' gun argument **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 30, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838 "2013-01-30T21:46:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/81 "2013-01-31T21:43:59Z")
I can’t believe this but I think I’m actually agreeing with Terr, at least partially. I don’t have my own children yet but if I did, I would easily kill someone else to protect their lives, if it were the only way to do so. I feel like by bringing a child into the world, you should be making an implicit promise to do anything and everything you can to protect them, even if that means killing someone else. I’m an anti-death penalty liberal and all, but… I can’t imagine holding so strongly to an ideal that I would let my children die to hold to. I’m not going to go as far as Terr and call it perverse, or whatever… but I certainly cannot relate or respect the position very much. I honestly wonder if I handed a loaded gun to someone who held this conviction, and then lined up his children and said “shoot me or your kids will die.” I believe that he would shoot me before I kill any of his kids, but say he lets me kill one of them first, then I say, “You have 10 seconds to shoot me before I kill your next kid.” I just can’t imagine anyone, no matter how strong their convictions, would let me go and kill their kids one by one while giving them a chance to stop it by shooting me. It’s just… unthinkable. ---
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/82 "2013-01-31T21:55:26Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > From the [Brady Campaign.](http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/222/) > Household burglaries occur on average about 3.7 million times a year (based on data from 2003 to 2007). Most burglaries occur when no one is home (72 percent). > > Of the burglaries in which someone was home and violence occurred (7 percent of all burglaries), 65 percent of victims knew the robber. Most people subject to violence were not injured or suffered minor injury (89 percent). Burglary-related homicides are rare, accounting for 430 average annual homicides or less than 1 percent of total homicides (2003-2007). > > So you have a 1 in 4 chance of violence when you’re home during a break-in. I don’t get your math here. Where is the 1 in 4 coming from? To me, the most important part of this quotation is the last sentence. Burglary-related homicides are very rare. The idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense due to that tiny chance of home-invasion murder is silly to me. The people I know who have guns may say they have them for defense, but they really have them cause they like guns. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/83 "2013-01-31T21:55:55Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > The baby cannot be allowed to die, as that would be the extinction of both our family lines Wait a minute, have you actually sat down and talked about preserving your family lines? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/84 "2013-01-31T22:06:04Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > Burglary-related homicides are very rare. The idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense due to that tiny chance of home-invasion murder is silly to me. 1. Same logic: “assault rifle” homicides are very rare (a lot rarer than burglary-related homicides). The idea that you have to ban them due to that tiny chance of assault-rifle murder is silly. Agree? 2. How about burglary-related woundings? Beatings? Rapes? According to the numbers given in the post above, those are about 27,000 a year (an injury that is not a “minor injury”). Do those justify having a gun for home defense? ---
**Author:** ![diggerwam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/919ad9/32.png) [@diggerwam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggerwam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/85 "2013-01-31T22:20:55Z")
I think the 1 in 4 chance referred to is the 28% of burglaries that happen when someone is home. Those at least have a possibility of violence. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/86 "2013-02-01T00:11:53Z")
The reality is that no one knows how they are going to react in that situation until it actually happens. Fear and adrenaline are wildcards. An elderly peacenik grandma may spring in to action and fire. A big tough guy may stand frozen and wet himself. We all like to think we would behave a certain way but you just don’t know ahead of time. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/87 "2013-02-01T01:24:59Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Wait a minute, have you actually sat down and talked about preserving your family lines? > 🙂 Really. As part of the series of discussions about education, religious instruction, medical care, inheritance, etc. that many spouses have when they’ve made the decision to have kids. Our families both have a fairly serious generational bottleneck, so amendments to our “run away” self-defense doctrine were necessary. No big whoop, we also have rather pedstrian plans for fires, medical emergencies, and natural disasters, among other things. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/88 "2013-02-01T01:32:16Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > I don’t get your math here. Where is the 1 in 4 coming from? > [@diggerwam](#): > > I think the 1 in 4 chance referred to is the 28% of burglaries that happen when someone is home. Those at least have a possibility of violence. 7% of all burglaries result in violence. 28% of all burglaries occur with someone home. 28/7=4 ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/89 "2013-02-01T02:10:54Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Welcome to Canada’s feelings on home defense (As you recall, the OP identified himself as Canadian). > > In Canada, guns are sporting equipment. No different from fishing rods, tennis racquets, or baseball bats. While guns can be used offensively, that’s not how (to Canadians) they’re supposed to be used. So it is with guns: Canadians use them to shoot paper targets, to compete in proper competitions, to bag deer and ducks. Canadians do not use guns to shoot home intruders; they use the phone to call the police. > … (Indeed, when I was dealing with a home intruder, it never occurred to me to get my guns; I scared him off with a baseball bat and the phone in my hand, talking to the 911 operator.) But in the US, guns seems to be used for for defense. It’s funny. In the United States, baseball bats are seen as sporting equipment. When dealing with a home intruder, I’d prefer to scare him off with a gun; it would never occur to me to get a baseball bat. ---
**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 1, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/90 "2013-02-01T02:28:07Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Really. As part of the series of discussions about education, religious instruction, medical care, inheritance, etc. that many spouses have when they’ve made the decision to have kids. Our families both have a fairly serious generational bottleneck, so amendments to our “run away” self-defense doctrine were necessary. No big whoop, we also have rather pedstrian plans for fires, medical emergencies, and natural disasters, among other things. And I paid $400.00 not to have children. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/91 "2013-02-01T02:32:10Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > And I paid $400.00 not to have children. > 🙂 That’s a bargain, barely a month’s worth of supplies. Funny ol’ world, innit? ---
**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 1, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/92 "2013-02-01T03:26:53Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > That’s a bargain, barely a month’s worth of supplies. Funny ol’ world, innit? Yeah. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shamozzle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shamozzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shamozzle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/93 "2013-02-01T03:54:09Z")
> [@perfectparanoia](#): > > Yes, I would. My kids live in a predominantly gun-free society. If the price that we pay for that is that occasionally not having a gun in our home means that someone gets dead by the bad guys, that’s worth it. You can’t be willing to hold that opinion unless you can accept that the small possibility that someone is going to die occasionally. That someone could be near and dear to you. I wonder, at what age, should one of your children voice his or her opinion that you are wrong on this, that you might consider his or her opinion sufficiently informed to give you pause. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/94 "2013-02-01T04:05:28Z")
> [@perfectparanoia](#): > > . > > Could you actually shoot them? Could you kill them? Would you? (Have you?) > > I know that I couldn’t. I could scratch, bite and punch them but kill them? Not something I could ever bring myself to do. So, what would be the point of having the gun in the first place? Probably, if my life or home was in danger. What good would biting, scratching, or punching (something I don’t have the physical capability of doing anyway) do against someone with a knife, blunt object, or even another gun? ---
**Author:** ![Doggo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@Doggo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doggo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/95 "2013-02-01T09:53:02Z")
> [@perfectparanoia](#): > > Really, I probably wouldn’t. Get between him and my kids and use my body as a physical barrier. Bite or scratch any parts that tried to grab me. > > So, yeah, I may harm the person but the goal is to stop them not hurt them. > > (Really, I would get my ass handed to me and probably die or be raped if that were the intent. For me, that is a small price to pay to have less guns around.) Be honest, would you feel that way while being raped, or while bleeding to death? I live in a country where I can’t have a gun, but I do have a big heavy pole to beat them to death with by my bed, and when I had a car, I had a pick handle under the seat. ---
**Author:** ![Doggo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@Doggo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doggo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/96 "2013-02-01T09:57:58Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Welcome to Canada’s feelings on home defense (As you recall, the OP identified himself as Canadian). > > In Canada, guns are sporting equipment. No different from fishing rods, tennis racquets, or baseball bats. While guns can be used offensively, that’s not how (to Canadians) they’re supposed to be used. So it is with guns: Canadians use them to shoot paper targets, to compete in proper competitions, to bag deer and ducks. Canadians do not use guns to shoot home intruders; they use the phone to call the police. > > As a Canadian gun owner, I’ll say that it has always seemed to me that Canada and the US have very different attitudes towards firearms. In Canada, they are sporting goods. (Indeed, when I was dealing with a home intruder, it never occurred to me to get my guns; I scared him off with a baseball bat and the phone in my hand, talking to the 911 operator.) But in the US, guns seems to be used for for defense. > > I think the OP would do well to understand this, and to understand it in the context of his home country’s attitudes towards firearms. The US is a different country, and can have different attitudes. But overall, from what I can tell, in Canada, guns are sporting goods; in the US, they are weapons used for self-defense. Different countries, different attitudes. That’s fine if the police live nearby. What are you going to do if you live half an hour or more from a police station, ask the intruder to have cup of tea while the police get there? ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/97 "2013-02-01T12:07:49Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > In Canada, guns are sporting equipment. No different from fishing rods, tennis racquets, or baseball bats. While guns can be used offensively, that’s not how (to Canadians) they’re supposed to be used. So it is with guns: Canadians use them to shoot paper targets, to compete in proper competitions, to bag deer and ducks. Canadians do not use guns to shoot home intruders; they use the phone to call the police. > > As a Canadian gun owner, I’ll say that it has always seemed to me that Canada and the US have very different attitudes towards firearms. In Canada, they are sporting goods. (Indeed, when I was dealing with a home intruder, it never occurred to me to get my guns; I scared him off with a baseball bat and the phone in my hand, talking to the 911 operator.) But in the US, guns seems to be used for for defense. This is also the general Euro perspective, and if the few Kiwis and Aussies I’ve met are fairly representative for their respective countries, it’s also pretty close to the attitude there. What I have a bit of a problem wrapping my mind around is the “what if you live in the sticks and it takes the cops half an hour to respond” argument. Well, as far as I can understand, violent crime (except for drunken brawls) is less common in the sticks than in urban environments. So, while the risk of a home invasion in an urban area is small, it should be insignificantly different from virtually none in the sticks. Which takes me to the conclusion that _either_ are the US boonies still violent frontier areas, like the ones we see in western movies, _or_ quite a few US citizens are rather paranoid about a phenomenon that happens very rarely. I’m a gun owner and I know how to handle a gun. I’m not at all afraid of guns. And I use my guns regularly for killing clay pigeons, paper targets, birds and deer. However, a simple risk assessment tells me that the advantage of keeping a gun so available that it is of any use in a home invasion/burglary scenario is more than outweighed by the risk of an accidental shooting due to having an operative gun so easily accessible. Especially since I have children, and children are naturally inquisitive. Especially my kids’ friends whom I have no possibility of teaching proper gun handling and behavior. So my guns are securely locked up in a safe, unloaded. With the ammo locked up in another closet. And as such, my guns are virtually useless for defense in a burglary scenario as the one drawn by the self defense types here. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/98 "2013-02-01T13:00:22Z")
> [@perfectparanoia](#): > > First off, I am a Canuck. I have never held a gun Well, thank Gawd. Now it’s safe to say it: Curling sucks!!! ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/99 "2013-02-01T13:40:14Z")
The OP’s premise is faulty. _ **How can you know what the intruder’s intentions are?** _ That the intruder _wanted to steal only a few things?_ That he intruder _was going to leave after stealing a few things?_ That the intruder _was not going to rape your wife, daughter, or even you?_ You have no idea what the intruder’s intention’s are, other than s/he intended to unlawfully enter your house because that’s clearly what they already did. ---
**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 1, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838/100 "2013-02-01T13:56:26Z")
> [@echo7tango](#): > > The OP’s premise is faulty. Statistically, I would imagine it to be correct, but I don’t want to play those odds, however small the chance. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trying-to-understand-the-home-defense-gun-argument/648838.md?page=6)