“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.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Killing in self-defense isn’t a bizarre reaction, but hanging on discussing such scenarios, bringing them up unnecessarily, fantasizing about them, these are pathological behaviors that suggest using the extremity of the situation as a moral pretext for getting off on murdering someone (especially a dirty poor)

    • SpiderFarmer [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Oh, no disagreement there. I ain’t fantasizing that, nor is that a worry for most folks, even those living in rougher sides of town. The only people wanting to do any killing are these rich fucks.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Home invasion robberies are three times more common than house fires. I bet you have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, and you’ve thought about how to keep yourself, your family, and your property safe from fires.

      Planning and preparing for an emergency event three times more likely than a fire is not “pathological”, nor is it indicative of some moral failing.

      There were people who denigrated others for choosing to wear seatbelts in their cars, or helmets on their motorcycles or PPE on their jobs. You sound like one of them. Do better.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          DOJ reports 1 in 3 home invasions involves violent victimization, which makes it just as common as the house fires that any prudent person considers and prepares against.

          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.

          While the actual rate of violent victimization during home invasion is a few orders of magnitude more prevalent than you acknowledge, your lightning analogy actually serves to demonstrate my point: As a society, we have deemed it prudent to establish extensive plans specifically to avoid getting struck by lightning. We cancel or delay sporting events, from youth soccer to major league baseball. We are taught to seek shelter indoors. If stuck outdoors, avoid tall structures. Don’t stand under loan trees, or near flagpoles. If stuck in a field, lay down on the ground. We take all sorts of measures to avoid this extraordinarily rare event.

          Prudent people plan for the eventualities you argue are too rare for rational people to even contemplate. Preparation for equally serious and much more prevalent emergencies is perfectly reasonable and rational.

      • Ivysaur [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        lmfao idiot. you still wearing a mask for covid big boy. please talk to me more about being denigrated for taking health and safety seriously. do it. I dare you.

          • Ivysaur [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Wrong answer! You can be an asymptomatic carrier at any point while Covid is still hanging around the general public, and especially while no one is taking mitigation seriously, you caring guy, you! You should be wearing a respirator any time you will be away from your home. You should be wearing one any time you would be in public, not just while you are sick, until Covid is gone; extinct, or cured. If you actually cared, you would know this. But of course! You’re a regular Semmelweis, only instead of being hanged for washing hands you’re at the stake for shooting and killing people. Of course you care!

            May we never meet.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Respirators do not filter their exhaust. They protect the individual wearing the respirator. They do not protect the public. With one exception, your advice is nonsensical.

              May we never meet.

              I wholeheartedly agree.