“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.
Used to break into homes. I was prepared for violence. You’re just wrong.
Anyone coming into your house on purpose at night is willing to hurt you. Giving them the chance and trying to be the nice guy by telling them your armed just announces where you are.
Take your family into one room and guard the door with your gun pointed at it, announce you are armed, and wait for them to leave.
The strongest doors in your house are the exterior doors. Those are the doors I’m going to be behind.
Anyone willing to come through the tough exterior doors into an occupied structure can be reasonably presumed to be willing to go through a cardboard-thin interior door into an occupied room.
Waiting for them to break down the door demonstrates I value their lives much more than they do. I’m not giving up the most defensible position in my own home to doubly prove that fact.
I’m not giving up the most defensible position in my own home
Who the fuck thinks like this?
What kind of moron charges a door when they know there’s people with a guns behind it?
Exactly. Why are they assuming there are no guns behind the heavy front door, and the only guns are behind the thin bedroom doors? What kind of moron do they have to be?
You’re just trying to create scenarios where you get to shoot someone lmao
The scenario I “created” is functionally identical to the scenario the parent comment created. I simply clarified that relying on a weak interior door is monumentally stupid when a tough exterior door is available. You know it, I know it, everyone reading along knows it.
“take what you want and leave” just generously assumes that what they want isn’t to hurt you
Why should that change when the TV gets moved to your house
Stores have insurance for shit, how many people have “burglar coverage”? Most people don’t have infinite wealth to just let walk out their front door
“take what you want and leave” just generously assumes that what they want isn’t to hurt you
It’s not generous to assume what is easily the most plausible interpretation. Unless it’s like a gang hit or something (including by cops), who the fuck wants to brutalize an entire family? That happened one time in Cheshire, CT and conservatives the whole country over have been milking it for a decade and a half.
how many people have “burglar coverage”?
lol
burglars typically get the fuck out if they learn someone is home, if they stick around after a warning they’re far more likely to be dangerous.
idk if someone is going to do harm to me, I don’t care about the sanctity of their life
The only difference between the bourgeois exploiting me and some shithead stealing from me is one is a class traitor
I was raised by gun people and brain poisoned from a very young age and now, years later, I still have to consciously remind my brain sometimes that my phone or laptop isn’t worth more than someone’s life.
I hate that growing up in this country made my default state a violent, terrified, antisocial mess that needed hard work to change into something resembling a normal human.
Very few burglaries are done in the middle of the night while the residents are home. Unless the burglar is very stupid they’re gonna burgle when everyone’s at work or on vacation etc. So in the extremely rare case that someone does break in at 3AM while you’re sleeping, I wouldn’t necessarily assume it’s definitely a robbery.
This isn’t to defend Kamala, I hate people who fantasize about implausible scenarios where they get to lawfully shoot somebody. A security system would likely deter any home invader regardless of their intentions.
I dont know the right way to handle this, but announcing your position is a good way to end up shot yourself.
I think you are confusing yourself by thinking of a typical burglary - I.e. a burglary where the burglar has done what they can to make sure people aren’t home (e.g. struck during work hours, saw the mail piling up and came when the person was on vacation, etc.)
But that’s not the situation being contemplated here. The OP specified a nighttime break in. This is the opposite of your standard burglar - they’ve struck when people are the MOST likely to be home.
Of this subset, what percentage have doing something bad to you in mind? Or more to the point, at what % are you morally obligated to not take actions against them? Let’s say 49% of the time does the nighttime breakin burglar actually intend you physical harm. Do you have to eat it at those numbers? (I’m asking genuinely, since you seem to have a strong moral intuition here. From your other post, you said you couldn’t put a value on human life, so the only other value I have here is the resident’s life. In the 49/51 example, since it’s more likely than not that there’s no harm intended, this maximizes the amount of lives).
