“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
I mean, anyone who hasn’t realized that she has 24/7 secret service protection and they’re going to fucking shoot anyone whose an intruder to any of their protectees homes…
are kinda dumb.
are kinda dumb.
Basically anyone in the GOP.
And the gun control single issue voters- at least a few.
I don’t think most people realize just how un-hesitant a secret service on protection detail will be to shoot an unknown intruder.
Like. That’s not a Harris thing. That’s just their job. Which is why the guy that saw a rifle more or less just started blasting. (Maybe not “just”… I assume they assessed range and stuff. A pistol at 200 yards is almost useless even if you do hit what you’re aiming at.)
There is this video where a guy shoots a target with a pistol from 200 yards, freehand, somehow(I timestamed it). It shows that 9mm carries a pretty good amount of penetration power at that range still, surprisingly.
The keltec is not a pistol, it’s a rifle. I’m guessing he has a ten inch barrel? Which gives a lot more velocity for a given cartridge, unless you’re fairly under pressure to start with.
He doesn’t show what a 9mm pistol can do at 200 yards of to balistics gel. Neither does he show the slugs hitting the target.
Which, you can make pistols do a bit better- one simple way is to go to +p cartridges or going to heavier rounds.
Do they carry enough energy to hurt? Sure.
Are they effective? No.
Also not shown is how many takes he took to make this video (and I’m guessing he took way more shots to get those hits than we see. Even if he is a perfect shooter, windage is variable, no one is a perfect shooter.)
In the timestamp he is shooting a cz75 at 200 yards. It still penetrates a pretty thick slab of wood. I still wouldn’t want to be at the end of it. Plus, there are some rare freaks who can put some rounds on target at that range is all I was trying to add, really.
Wasn’t trying to completely invalidate what you were saying by any means, just saying it isn’t so cut and dry is all. In most cases, what you said is true for sure.
deleted by creator
kinda dumb.
You really think the cult isn’t that dumb? Any bets that one of them will try it? Of course MAGA would claim it was her fault in any circumstance.
When I think about it
Instead of a debate let’s go to a range and do a little target shooting.
Watching Trump fumble around, hit nothing, getting smoked by a woman.
Sounds like a lot of fucking fun to watch.
Oh wait we already saw that lolololol.
As a convicted felon, Trump can’t have a gun. ;)
Oh sheesh I totally forgot. Hilarious.
I guess it would be entrapment, but it would be funny as hell if Harris goaded him into a target shooting competition, handed him a gun, and then immediately had him arrested. 🤣
“Felon in possession!”
I’d bet money that DonOld has never actually loaded a gun. If he’s ever actually shot one it was probably handed to him with the safety off and a lot of prayer.
These idiots filmed themselves trying to overthrow the government. They’ll taking this as a dare/challenge
And one did it while still wearing his work Id badge on a lanyard.
I like this for some reason. Maybe even more if she slipped and said “fuckin’ shot” maybe because it’s Oprah.
Weird that the whole “I probably shouldn’t say that” is a very Trump like thing to say, but those types of comments have a lot of power with people so more power to her.
It was an authentic moment and people love that. I watched it live and was like dayum.
I’ve done a shit ton of research and writing on the topic of firearm regulation. I grew up with them as well. I am absolutely for very strict firearm regulation… However: I think it’s time democrats pivot on this to root causes: education, Healthcare, and societal stressors. The electorate just isn’t there yet, and it will probably take another 2 decades at least before the boomers die off and any movement can be made.
I’m not even sure if the electorate is in a place to address issues in education and healthcare, haha. But unfortunately I agree; I think Dems are right because it’s clear other nations don’t have this problem (even with their same unhappy societies) but making only incremental gains with gun control shows that it can’t be done right now.
But I wouldn’t necessarily go with root causes as first priority. If they could fix election issues like gerrymandering and the electrical college, urban centers would have a fair say and might push harder on gun regulation when voices are heard on equal level. If I had a majority, that’s what I’d hit first to make the rest easier.
Wholly agree! Campaign Finance / Election Reform is my #1 issue and I’ve been advocating for this to be the single issue vote we all get behind. It truly is the root of nearly every other issue and complaint we have.
Apparently we will have to wait for a few additional generations to die off as ones like yours keep saying infinitely wise things like “why ban guns, just solve all mental problems nation wide”.
The entire world knows this fact: the root cause of Americas gun problems is the sheer amount of them and how easy it is for ANYONE to obtain one.
But you know what, I’m open to be proven wrong. Why don’t you show me which nation has shown its possible to resolve mental health issues across their whole population. How about studies that show most shooters are mentally I’ll? Or recently fired? Or poor?
Kinda interesting how even the poorest people in America have guns huh?
Look I don’t disagree necessarily. I work in a hospital and my wife is the first response to tragedies like this as well. In the hospital we must simultaneously treat both root cause and symptoms. Firearms are a symptom of a deeper problem that, like shock or hemorrhagic bleeding, exacerbate whatever the original problem is. That being said, if we can reduce the number of people who slip through the cracks of society we can improve our outcomes just the same.
No doubt on the surface, cutting supply and taking firearms off the streets is likely the simpler route at addressing the symptom; that is, the average lethal effectiveness of a deranged person when they do slip through the cracks. But I’m trying to be pragmatic and avoid putting the cart before the horse because unfortunately there really is limited support for this and no budging in polling; and ultimately, Democrats tying themselves to this jeopordizes key parts of the electorate in order to win elections int he first place. So ultimately, I’d rather table this issue and soften the perception from centrists and conservatives in order to stop fascism. Then, we can utilize this as a launching point to address root causes: “Okay, you want to keep your 2nd Amendment… I get that. So let’s compromise, let you keep that, and we work on universal healthcare, guaranteed therapy, reduction in work week hours, K-College publicly-funded education, etc.”
Until the position of where the electorate is at moves, then we are simply stuck on this. If Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn’t do it, then nothing will for some time. So conversely, let me know when there is legitimate shift in the electorate and perhaps then we can tackle this. Though I suspect that only comes with the passing of boomers. (and yes, we keep saying this. Unless you’re 100-years-old, we’re the same people still waiting for the same generation to die off…)
So you say that people like me make it harder to get democrats elected right? Tell me which is supposed to lead which, the party lead the people or the people lead the party?
There is no consensus opinion, which is why its avoided as its a lose-lose topic. Its a hardball as they say.
I would argue people like you, holding the compromising position you have, are what prevents the democratic party from taking this issue seriously. Politicians avoid ambiguous positions almost to a fault, so you adding to that is hurting the situation.
That depends… Are you still voting Democrat? Because there are people who if Harris came out strong on guns WOULDN’T and that might not put us over the edge. After all, you probably agree with let’s say 70, 80, 90% of Democratic policy, but only 5, 10, 15% of Republican policy right? Strategic voting is necessary in our fucked up system.
Unfortunately you do not represent the broader electorate; for there is a large swath of conservative people who still love their guns, and at best it becomes zero sum. Ultimately, the more she leans into you, the more she distances herself from millions of Americans who like their guns.
So the key is to maintain an activist mindset and influence change in public opinion; only then will you see a change in candidate policy. But shooting yourself in the foot when the broader electorate isn’t there only to have the party you agree with 5% of the time win…? That’s just patently short-sighted because they’ll take us several steps backwards.
So tell me when you have a magical plan to convince the majority of Americans who still believe in the 2nd Amendment to abandon it. And let me tell you: Sabotaging Democrats isn’t a fucking plan. That’s shooting yourself in the foot.
Yes, if you come in my home forcefully, I’ll do my best to kill you. That is a line one does not cross, especially not with my wife and children in the house. Bullshit outside is a call to 911, see what happens.
Sure, maybe it’s some drunk or kid at the wrong home. That’s why you take a breath and identify the target and situation. If you’re too fucking panicky to do that, give up your weapons, you do not deserve them.
Gun laws are mostly counter-productive and racist, but I’d go for a simple “use of force” test before one’s initial purchase. If you watch GunTubers, you’ll get sane takes, often straight legal advice from lawyers. If you talk to individuals, Jesus, what these people think is lawful and moral… And if you can’t be arsed to do your fucking homework before bringing death into the equation, you are not fit to own or handle a weapon.
And don’t fuck with me on this unless you’ve suffered a home invasion. Ever had hoods break in and rob you at knife point on Christmas Eve? Ever had a bear wander in your home on Christmas Eve? (Wow, now that I say that out loud… weird. Maybe I should not stay home on the 24th. OK, the wolf hybrid cruised in one summer night, but I knew him. Still got me to draw. 🙄)
These downvotes seem a little excessive. You’re making some good points about guns and how people should handle them.
Being robbed doesnt give someone the right to kill someone. This is about personal morals, not tit for tat or get off my lawn bullshit. People have absurdly irrational fears that murderers are wandering the streets at night and picking random houses.
Stealing is a cash business, theres no benefit to stealing from occupied homes, and absolutely not for attacking or killing an occupant. Criminals know this, they are just as afraid of people in the house as the other way around, thats why they carry weapons.
The goal is that guns are harder to get, which makes them too expensive for random criminals to carry. Then homeowners can pull their old baseball bat out for home protection like we used to.
Also, if you have people breaking in trying to murder you, you have made some awful enemies then.
I’m close on this.
I’m a responsible gun owner, but there are a LOT of crazy ammosexuals out there who aren’t safe to let carry.
If someone tries to enter your house though, that’s a red line.
I literally trust noone who has ever said “I’m a responsible gun owner”.
I feel like this a cultural thing because that sounds wild to me.
The penalty for burglary where I am is not death, nor am I a judge or executioner.
We’ve been broken into a lot and it’s usually just some poor asshole who wants to steal things to buy meth. It’s horrible and scary and feels like a massive violation but shooting someone in that scenario just feels like straight up murder.
When someone breaks into your home you don’t have much of an opportunity to figure out why. Many times the reason is not to steal things and buy meth. Sometimes it’s to hurt, rape, or kidnap someone. Why take that chance?
You might be picturing someone slowly walking up and executing a pleading, weaponless burglar in cold blood. In reality these things happen with mere seconds to make a decision about the safety of you and your family. Again, Why take the chance?
If you’re breaking into a house, getting shot is a calculated risk you have chosen to take. If it happens, it’s only your fault. You had the choice to not put yourself or anyone else in harm’s way, and you chose the other option.
When someone breaks into your home you don’t have much of an opportunity to figure out why.
My thoughts exactly. “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote is a true story about burglars who came to steal and ended up murdering a whole family. Awful thing to experience. Great book though.
The bigger problem is that people who buy guns for home defense are acting emotionally, not logically. The cold hard statistical truth is that if you own a firearm, it is most likely to be used by yourself or one of your family members to commit suicide, or to be the cause of a fatal accident, than it is to be used in self defense.
People have this deeply flawed belief about suicide that if someone wants to do it, they’ll find a way. But that isn’t how suicide actually works. Most actual suicides are spur-of-the moment things. And giving someone access, in their, home, to a quick and usually painless method of ending their own life serves to massively increase the risk of suicide. Everyone has bad days. Everyone who lives long enough and isn’t a psychopath will experience deep sorrow. In a drunken sorrow on the night after a bad breakup or the death of a close relative? It doesn’t take much for people to be vulnerable to the call of the void.
Yes, break-ins are scary. But the truth is, most thieves try NOT to break in when someone is home. And home invasions for rape, murder, or kidnapping are even rarer. There are a lot of scary things in this world, but you shouldn’t let that fear control your behavior. Rabies is a damn terrible thing, but it would be incredibly irrational to avoid going on a hike just due the risk of encountering a rabid wild animal.
In the US at least, if you own a gun, it is far, far likelier that that weapon will be used to end your life or life of one of your family members than it will end be used in self defense.
This is why I do not own a firearm. Yes, home invasions are terrifying. But if you own a weapon for the sake of home defense, you are letting your emotions and fear control your life. The simple statistical fact is that, on the net, buying a gun lowers your average expected lifespan.
All of those reasons are why I never owned a gun until I was 39, didn’t really get into the thing until I was 49. A younger me would have surely done something stupid or killed myself, purposefully or on accident.
you are letting your emotions and fear control your life
After the armed robbery, yeah, PTSD, glad I didn’t have a gun after that. My much older roommate had a pistol, kept his eye on the situation and decided it not worth the legal hassle of shooting them. And keep my story in mind. I’ve had a black bear and a giant wolf-hybrid wander in.
Having said all that, I don’t keep a gun in my desk and on my nightstand out of fear. Same reason I carry in the woods and on the rivers and creeks, because I can. Let’s drop the fearful gun-nut thing. Yes, they exist, but for the vast majority of us guns are like any other safety tool. (Plus, we like to shoot!)
I have a fire extinguisher at home and at camp. I don’t fear fire. I carry a med-kit on me when hiking or on the water. No particular fear of being wounded. Among other safety items I carry a compass, fire starters, GPS, 2 knives, 2 flashlights, paracord, first-aid gear and medicines. Do I need those things? Rarely for safety reasons, but better to have than not have if needed.
Y’all are getting caught up on the word fear. The distinction is if someone takes actions that reduce their safety when they intend to increase it.
They are right on average, but outliers do exist. Its not a guarantee of what will happen, but you do have to have some sort of logic to risk assessment.
In my situation, its true a gun in my house increases risk, so I don’t have one. I’m sure some people have easily demonstrated needs for that type of protection, you should have to prove it first however.
Sort of like vaccines, guns affect more than the person who has one, so its important to consider the risk to your community as well.
I’m listening, and we can talk, but…
you should have to prove it first however
Whether you or I find gun ownership a Constitutional right, the courts agree it is, and have done so historically. (Unless the owner is black, but that’s another story.)
The “prove” part is a hard “no”. I don’t have to “prove” any of my Constitutional rights. New York had that notion and the court, rightfully IMHO, shot it down. In Alabama you had to have the county sheriff sign off on your “need” to conceal carry. Any guesses as to how that was applied?
guns affect more than the person who has one
I think we’re close here…? What do you mean exactly? In any case, how would we remedy the situation? I’m on the constant lookout for gun laws that will pass the courts and have effect.
(And thank you for taking the time to write that up. So rare in these discussions.)
Still sounds like a fear motivation, just this time for not having a gun.
Well the catch is everything can be broken down to some emotional response. Most would argue wanting to be alive to be somewhat objective.
That’s still the motivation for both sides. I’m not so much commenting on which one is right or wrong as pointing out that the logic won’t be effective at changing minds because the exact same argument can justify either side.
There was more to the argument above but then it was weakened by “don’t be ruled by fear, fear this other outcome instead”. IMO, it would have been better worded as, “if you fear x, consider whether you should fear y more instead” (or something like that, I’m not the most eloquent).
The first version is not only contradictory but also full of contempt. There’s an implied “what you’re doing is stupid, but what I’m doing isn’t”, which is fine for people who already agree that the other option is stupid, but can put those who don’t already agree on the defensive.
Where do you live that bears and gangs are both on the table, Anchorage?
Deranged MAGA nuts: Challenge accepted!
We can be pretty sure they’d make martyr out of such individual(s), given how they treat the TERRORIST that is Ashli Babbitt.
The flailing dumb-dumb donnie even brought her up during the debate.
Well, better than the time someone broke into the home of the Canadian Prime Minister (Jean Chretien at the time) and his wife held off the intruder with a soapstone carving…
I hate to say it, but in America right now, Harris leaning into a quasi-pro gun stance is probably the right move. Something like 75% of the country are against a hand gun ban (which is the type of gun used in like 97% of murders), over 70% say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, a large majority are against an all-rifle ban, and a simple majority are against an assault-rifle style ban.
Until the gun culture in America changes, and with presidential elections always being so close, moving away from the anti-gun position just makes obvious political sense, unfortunately.
Mine too, Madamme. Mine too
What are we going to do with all those Louisville Sluggers, sitting in the hallway closet?
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/
Careful Kamala… your neo-lib is showing.
How so? Explain please, cause I’m not understanding the connection. (Yes, I’m both non-American and an idiot)
She forgot the “a” in her statement. Any intruder in her house is gonna get a COVID vaccination.
