“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
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.