“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.

    • Roonerino [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • AmericaDeserved711 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

        • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          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).

            • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              Me personally? No, I would lock my door and call the police. I would not go out and try to confront the burglar, but I wouldn’t also call out to them and say “oh btw I’m here and armed.”

          • Huldra [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 days ago

            But we’re not arguing about homicide by magic spell here, this is a pretty specific and extremely spotlighted type of crime, the only reason to conjure coinflip percentages out of thin air is to entice specific sentiment, fascist sentiment in this case.

            • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              What? The reason I ask is to try to get a better understanding of the principal backing up the stance you took. I was trying to understand if it was life-maximizing with no qualifiers (i.e. irrespective of whose life was risked), which is how it read to me in your other responses in the thread. But I wasn’t sure, since you also said like 99.99% of the time, the burglar wouldn’t attack you if you announced, which could mean there was a heavily qualified principal.

              So, I asked the hypothetical to try to figure out what your underlying motivating principal is here, as it filters out the noise of the 99.99% example. It was in no way meant to “entice fascist sentiment.”

    • LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA [he/him]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.

    • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      “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

      • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        Literally every homeowner in the US that hasn’t paid off their home (read: most of them) have homeowners insurance, which has theft and burglary provisions. A good many have renters insurance, too.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        “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