“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.

    • AmericaDeserved711 [any]
      ·
      2 months 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.

      • Lenins_Cat_Reincarnated
        ·
        2 months ago

        Burglaries during night are less common but not that rare. Night burglars are more often under influence of drugs and in general less experienced. Which means that a confrontation is more risky and should be avoided if possible.

    • Roonerino
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      deleted by creator

    • Sulvor [he/him, undecided]
      ·
      2 months ago

      I dont know the right way to handle this, but announcing your position is a good way to end up shot yourself.

        • Lurker123 [he/him]
          ·
          2 months 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]
              ·
              2 months 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]
            ·
            2 months 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]
              ·
              2 months 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]M
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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

        • Abracadaniel [he/him]
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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

          • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
            ·
            2 months ago

            The massive assumption here being that by default they will do harm to you, this is true crime brain.

            • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]
              ·
              2 months ago

              "Stealing my shit" is doing me harm because I am a poor person who can't just magic a new life out of nothing. I have no fucking sympathy for anyone who tries to steal from me, sorry. And idk but i'm not going to trust renters insurance to just go "oh, someone stole all your shit? here's the full value of it" 🤷‍♂️

                  • MayoPete [he/him, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    If you are one of the 376/100000 (0.37%) to even be burglarized in the first place:

                    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1238258/burglary-rate-country/

                    • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]
                      ·
                      2 months ago

                      if y'all gonna be all "this is reactionary" i'm gonna say this is some Ultra shit, "the only acceptable response to burglary is to hide in your room, otherwise you're a chud" and going all morshupls about it

                      • MayoPete [he/him, comrade/them]
                        ·
                        2 months ago

                        I didn't say that. It's just funny to me how there's an internet culture of blowing a very specific, rare, type of crime out of proportion so they can fantizise over shooting someone.

                        If you actually want to make your family safer stop worrying so much about the .3% thing and focus more on getting less cars on the road? More public transit, more walkable cities, less cars means a way safer place for everyone.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            Comrade Beanis here made it explicitly clear that shooting someone in defense of your and your family's actual safety is legitimate. That's the whole point of the "point the gun at the door" thing.

            • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]
              ·
              2 months ago

              the thing is yall don't consider taking my shit to be doing harm to me, someone living paycheck to paycheck who would never be able to replace any of it in a reasonable time frame, and you're fucking wrong shrug-outta-hecks like are you really so incapable of conceiving "harm" to a person beyond just bodily harm? Like if I come steal all your fucking food and you starve to death, it's fine because I didn't assault you? Literally fucking social murder, but it's fine because uhhhh burglary is cool and good? Christ in fucking heaven, stop arguing with me about this

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                ·
                2 months ago

                If you have a house, you should have insurance. If you have an apartment and lock your door, it's extremely unlikely someone is going to loot it because apartments are just bad targets (and low-rent ones are typically going to have much less in them worth stealing).

                No one is going to break into your domicile to steal loaves of bread, and even if they did, they'd need to come back on a regular basis and also rob the local soup kitchen(s) for it to be remotely viable that you starve even in this Twilight Zone scenario.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even if theynare putting a price tag on it, they are only making an "offer" on a home invader's life. It is entirely up to the home invader as to whether they want to "accept" that offer.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        2 months 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

      • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • MayoPete [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why do you believe people break into homes in the first place? What could possibly cause people to be so desperate 🤔

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              ·
              2 months ago

              If they find out after entering people are awake and armed, they're bailing out.

              Better for them to "bail out" before coming through the front door. They won't even catch a charge if they do that.

              Clearly, we aren't talking about the kind of people who "bail out", so I'll invite you to think on that a moment.