“I’m a gun owner; Tim Walz is a gun owner,” Harris said.
“I did not know that,” Winfrey replied.
“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris added. “Probably should not have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.”
The article has a video clip. I love the bullshit “probably…” It’s a 100% certainty she spoke with her staff and workshopped the phrasing and presentation of gun stuff. Plus I bet she practiced her lines. No American politician is going to wing it when talking about guns.
You’re scolding me over a complete distortion of the facts. The vast, vast majority of home invasions are intended to be while no one is home, so you will have no cause to shoot someone because either you aren’t there (this is most likely) or you are there and you will scare them off with a threat (if not your mere presence). Cheshire Home Invasion situations are so rare that there’s a reason many people outside of Connecticut know its name, because this scenario of sub-human sickos aiming to break in while your family is home and murder you happens less often than people getting struck by lightning.
Fantasizing about shooting people is pathological. Do better.
Removed by mod
It’s common courtesy when you make a citation on a forum like this, that you actually link to it. I must assume this is the report you mean, which, if so, you misread or misrepresented, because what it actually says is 7% of home invasions involve violent victimization (in most cases just assault). Anyway, it’s my fault for inviting us to get too stuck in the weeds.
I’m never said people shouldn’t take measures against burglary, and on the contrary have nothing against having locks, deadbolts, cameras, security systems, and signage for the latter two. Probably the main thing that I have against keeping guns is that you’re more likely to hurt yourself or a family member or someone than a Home Invader, which I’m sure you’d agree is only prudent.
But even that’s sort of a distraction because my main gripe wasn’t with people keeping guns but with them focusing on this specific circumstance of killing a home invader as an automatic response. As another poster said, it is both more humane and more sensible to hypothetically use the gun mainly as a means to threaten the hypothetical Invader. They aren’t going to be interested in attacking someone with a gun, it makes things easier if you’re being a moron (as many people apparently are) and just mistaking some innocent person for a threat, and it’s also not just treating the Home Invader’s life like it’s de facto fit to be ended by summary execution. But no, Americans would rather play King of the Castle and hype themselves up to murder the Unworthy, indeed getting so excited that they are, again, more likely to shoot their own family member or some random drunk guy who thought he was at his own house or something.
Removed by mod
I have never once said this, you continue to wildly misrepresent me. I’m tired of repeating myself, but what I’m talking about is a) fixating on this home invasion scenario and b) shoot-on-sight. Those things are pathological. Keeping a gun is probably a bad idea for statistical reasons already mentioned, but it’s not pathological in any further sense.
You ignored most of what I said. Yes, obviously if you threaten rather than bluff, that means you are willing to follow through. I cited the other poster’s example, of having a gun pointed at the door and informing the burglar that you’ll shoot if they open it. Obviously I am not saying you make a bluff and then let them strip the shirt off your back if they call the bluff. Obviously.
But if that isn’t true, what good is blustering? It seems much more productive to tell the truth, that attacking someone may be suicidal, since it still protects the safety of the resident while accounting for the more likely scenario that the person taken for an invader is not one.
Removed by mod
“Gaslighting is when someone disagrees” You’re being ridiculous. Look back, I never once said that getting/keeping a gun for self defense was pathological beyond the thing I mentioned a few times now about injuring non-home-invaders. I’ve explained this over and over, but you really want to brow beat me into a ridiculous position because, I don’t know, maybe I offended your sensibilities. It doesn’t matter.
Meanwhile you’ve regressed to liberal Castle Doctrine fantasies, ignoring all the points about avoiding misunderstandings and maybe even caring about human life. We haven’t moved an inch, this conversation is pointless.
Edit: I don’t care to investigate it at this point, but I’m pretty sure you literally just misread/misinterpreted what I said as a more hardline position than what it was, and no number of paragraphs of explaining what my position is will dissuade you, you just accuse me of “gaslighting” you like some miserable twitter dork, when if you were actually right you could very easily produce evidence.
This conversation is a waste of time. Stay in your Castle reciting liberal mantras about social contract theory, I don’t give a shit.
Removed by mod