"I'm a gun owner. Tim Walz is a gun owner. If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot." Harris told Oprah.
"I'm a gun owner. Tim Walz is a gun owner. If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot." Harris told Oprah.
“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 viewing part of a thread.
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.
It's common courtesy when you make a citation on a forum like this, that you actually link to it.
My position remains valid even with your (uncited) claim that victimization is only as common as the lightning strikes for which we do discuss and make extensive preparations to mitigate. Even your deeply biased example serves to demonstrate my point; there is no need for me to prove the reality.
I'm never said people shouldn't take measures against burglary,
You have repeatedly characterized one specific type of preparation as "pathological". That's like saying smoke detectors are OK, but having and planning on using fire extinguishers is anti-socoal behavior.
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.
Of course. But where is the line? Where do you cross from "humanely threatening" to "forcefully stopping the threat"? If you are going to have a gun, you must consider that line: if you're never going to fire, that gun can be taken from you, and used either on you, or on a future victim. If you're going to have a gun, you must consider the circumstances under which you can or will fire it. It is unreasonable to categorically declare such considerations "pathological".
We have at least one self-proclaimed (former) home invader participating in this thread. How many "(potential)" home invaders are reading along? Do you want them learning about homeowner responses from you, or from me?
Suppose that I can talk to the people planning on breaking into your home, and you can talk to the people planning on breaking into my home. You're telling my burglars how I'll hide in a bedroom and wait for them to leave; I'm telling your burglars that you're going to shoot them as soon as they cross the threshold.
Which group of potential burglars is more likely to call off their attack? Which group of burglars is more likely to be killed during their attack? Which one of us is safer?
The only message that a home invader should hear and believe is that entering a home is suicidal. Allowing them to think you will tolerate their presence in any way just gives them the invitation.
Will I immediately kill an invader as soon as they cross the threshold? I can tell you that the drunken asshole who barged in through my front door, threatening me at 2am, immediately fucked off and is still alive. I can tell you that I had the shot, and that I was fully justified in taking it. I can tell you that I am satisfied with the outcome. And I can tell you that the immediacy of the fucking-off played a large role in my decision not to fire.
You have repeatedly characterized one specific type of preparation as "pathological".
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.
This only message that a home invader should hear and believe is that entering a home is suicidal.
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.
You have repeatedly characterized one specific type of preparation as "pathological".
I have never once said this, you continue to wildly misrepresent me.
Stop gaslighting. You have misrepresented such preparations as "fantasizing about shooting people" and declared such preparations to be "pathological".
But if that isn't true, what good is blustering? It seems much more productive to tell the truth.
Right. So, don't bluster. Do tell the truth. Home invasion is suicidal behavior. Anyone in or near that home is ready, willing, and able to kill you if you decide to invade.
Stop with this nonsense about "protecting stuff". You're not protecting stuff. Stuff just happens to be in the same room as the people you are protecting from an invader with unknown intentions.
Stop with this nonsense about "threatening" the invader. They've already crossed the line, the threshold from civil to life threatening behavior. There is no need for further attempts at communication. There is no need for additional threats or other attempts at persuasion. You aren't prohibited from attempting to employ them, but you are under no further obligation to try. At this point, they have crossed every line the state has drawn, and you may do anything you reasonably believe necessary to stop their threat. You are free to draw your own additional lines, but you are not required to. You owe no further duty of restraining yourself, and you do not reacquire such a duty until the threat has ended.
Stop gaslighting. You have misrepresented such preparations as "fantasizing about shooting people" and declared such preparations to be "pathological".
"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.
Gaslighting is when someone disagrees.
Gaslighting is where you try to claim you didn't make a comment that you actually did, insinuating fault on the part of your adversary. You know this. I know this. I stand by my claim of gaslighting.
Look back, I never once said that getting/keeping a gun for self defense was pathological
Strawman. I never made this claim. My claim of gaslighting had nothing to do with your position on whether people should or should not have guns. I recognize that you have raised such an argument at least twice, but I have not addressed it.
What you did do was characterize the contemplation of discharging a firearm during a home defense scenario as a fantisization about killing people. You referred to such contemplation as "pathological". When I called you out, you claimed otherwise. That "otherwise" claim qualifies as gaslighting.
Understanding the circumstances that would have to exist before defensive force can be employed is not "pathological". It is "prudent". It is something we should expect and demand from all gun owners. We should expect and demand all gun owners to have considered what circumstances must exist before they are justified in pulling a trigger. This consideration-of-circumstances is not any sort of bloodlust, desire for murder, or any other sort of malfeasance. It does not indicate any sort of desire to create or hope for such circumstances to come into existence.
Your characterization of such contemplation as "pathological" - and your multiple strawmen and ad hominem arguments - demonstrate your arguments are made in bad faith.