The invention of rights and less often so responsibilities that actually don't exist or are a gross exaggeration or misinterpretation is a phenomenon which I only remember from encounters with Americans.
It appears to be a cheap trick in American rhetoric, but it may be more widespread. My evidence is anecdotal.

Another example is a confused person who believed his freedom of speech extended to getting whatever comment he has published on my blog.
His freedom of speech didn't even extend to say his opinion like that in public due to its limits in regard to libel!
More importantly, he had no claim to get his opinion published in the medium and place of his choosing, but rather to not be sanctioned for expressing it in whatever way he manages to express it (sans the libel).
______

In this case, the team "pro guns" denies that self defence without guns is sufficient and goes on to claim a responsibility to self defend. In combination this asserts the team "contra gun" is not meeting its responsibility, a ludicrous implication. Moreover, asserting a responsibility where there is none provides additional (imagined) weight to the team "pro gun"'s case.
A rational, mud-free discussion looks differently.