Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’ during event with Oprah
thehill.com
“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.”
Some Republican is suddenly going to be against self defense. Just you watch.
“She needs to tone down her violent rhetoric.”
She was a DA. She’s probably carried since then.
Carrying and knowing how to use it are 2 different things. Without constant practice and being able to perform under pressure it's just an idiot with a gun.
Wait how did you get that take from the person you're responding to?
He just wants you to know he has a gun and "trains" with it, but it would seem abrupt and weird if he just blurted that out fir no reason.
One weird trick to get gun control laws Republicans don't want you to know!
To my understanding it worked with the Black Panthers
By Republican God Reagan, no less.
This is why EVERY queer person should carry a gun, openly if it’s legal in your region
Tell that to the Veteran legally open carrying in Texas who was shot by an asshole who felt threatened. The asshole was pardoned.
For completeness, the asshole was also in the Army but that's mostly unrelated to his racism and murder of a fellow Servicemember.
It's like the only way to square "open carry" laws with "stand your ground" laws is to just let people shoot each other.
For once, the Democrats have figured out how to game the Republicans into gun regulations: by being vocal about firearm ownership on the left.
Last time the Republicans passed gun reform, it was during their god-emperor Reagan's presidency, when Black Panthers had the nerve to arm themselves in public while forgetting to be white.
Harris should promote open carry for immigrant brown people. Maybe then we can finally get universal background checks, red flag laws, etc.--all popular with the public and a majority of gun owners.
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.
I mean, this is a pretty logical and understandable consequence of the right's call for political violence. I was pretty surprised the Pelosi intruder was able to do so much, tbh.
Edit: But, yes, people are dumb and disingenuous and will say that they should be able to kill an intruder on their property without question and then turn around and say that Harris' detail should not be allowed to do so.
Pelosi's attacker got as far as he did because Pelosi's protection was with her, and she wasn't home, which let Paul take the brunt of the attack.
One would think they would leave at least one agent with him.
You'd think, right? Well NOW he does, I bet...
Oh yeah. It still surprised me, though.
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.
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.
Reminds me of that West Wing episode where he "accidentally" makes an offensive gun analogy comment; Harris doesn't really alienate any supporters here, and she appeals to the undecided gun crowd voters. As a bonus, she's "telling it like it is" for folks who are self-described as being "fed up with PC culture."
The West Wing looks so fucking anachronistic now
It was then, too.
The Republicans as portrayed in The West Wing were far more sane than even the GOP at the time. Remember, the show first aired shortly after the GOP impeached Clinton for a blowjob because they couldn't find any evidence of impropriety in the Whitewater deal.
Yeah but Republicans weren't all properly cartoonishly evil at that point, we had senators like McCain and others, and if you started to talk about how the nazis were actually just misunderstood they'd kick your ass out of the party.
I can't even make myself rewatch it because the "scandals" that are at the core of most episodes are so mundane and plebian it just descends into a farce.
Hell, even the many scenes when they treat the Whitehouse as a kind of civic holy ground just don't work now. I just can't buy it after 4 years of that lunatic sitting behind the resolute desk.
Time has changed the show from "an idealized depiction of a Democratic White House" to "an idealized depiction of a functioning government not hampered by an irrational party comprised of insane ideologues and traitors."
yeah, Veep is the show to watch if you want to get a feel for what happens in government.
He wasn't impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for perjuring himself while the defendant in a sexual harassment inquiry. The blowjob is just the thing he lied about.
Don’t forget - Newt Gingrich (may he be ever fucked by rusty rebar in hell) was leading the impeachment charge while he was in the throes of his OWN sex scandal.
Compared to how DC runs these days, West Wing is up there with Harry Potter on the Fantasy scale.
Your bonus point is depressingly significant. The number of people I've heard say something like, "I don't like x, y, z about Trump, but I like that he speaks his mind and tells it like it is in his opinion" drives me crazy. When did it become admirable to be an unfiltered boor?
The unfiltered boors of the world like to feel valid and important.
Its a false expectation. They think thats what smart successful people do. The big problem with trusting your impulses immediately, is you will only consider your own perspective. Its very hard to change your own perspective unless thats what you are already trying to do.
Agreed. I thought it was one of the best things out of her mouth at the event (which was surprisingly well done, worth a watch). I think people want to see more honest, unprepared remarks from her (she's been really staying on message). But I doubt there will be many more events like this with hosts like Oprah, who is quite skilled at producing these moments.
I mean it's true, if you bust into the VP's house I'd expect nothing less
Me, while im bleeding out on the ground: " I really just wanted to see the P90 in action. Its so cool. Worth it."
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. ;)
He can't even have bullets on his person
So for that like .1ms where he was being "hit" by that bullet were technically him breaking the law
Finally! He broke the law! We got him!
oh shit, what's he gonna do for his vote casting photoshoot in Florida
Upside down bible
Oh sheesh I totally forgot. Hilarious.
And yet they're still trying to give it to him
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.
...Then pit both of them against someone that goes to a monthly IDPA or USPSA match.
(My point is, if you want to be able to use a gun when you're under a lot of pressure to perform well, you gotta practice under pressure too.)
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.
And then you get shot when it turns out to be the police raiding your home unannounced because they got the address wrong again.
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.
Unfortunately that doesn’t serve the democrats as a whole, so it isn’t prioritized by the party favorites.
(Note: I am NOT both-sidesing here. I always have and will again vote D this election because they are the most sane option that actually has some human interests at heart. I just accept that they are not all altruistic and are also motivated to keep status quo in some ways that don’t align to my personal preferences for my elected officials. They are still the right choice.)
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 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.
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.
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...
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?
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.)
**So your argument is guns are a right and you don't need to prove you deserve it. I just disagree morally. We should change that. Sure, you are legally correct, but you can be legally correct and morally defunct at the same time.
The 2nd amendment can and should be changed. Its an amendment in the first place, which sort of seems to imply changes are at the very least possible.
I don't think its possible to change guns in america without amending the constitution first.
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.
You are saying it makes no difference because the logic is the same for both sides, and km saying thats the point.
The real problem is that people do not evaluate guns appropriately, or themselves.
One half is regulation: "Do I think I'm a good gun owner? Of course!", kind of stuff is wrong, but also a very common comment. Its also the requirement for buying a gun. Like a company that creates its own certification, and then certifies itself as safe.
The other half is a lack of understanding of what owning a gun might mean for the owner, and for this in the house with them, and those in their community. There are situations a gun makes someone safer, but the rest of their family of higher risk, or vice versa. There are also situations where a gun is necessary.
But we don't honestly talk about this in America. Guns are always good here. Have a problem involving guns? Guns would have solved it for sure. Dont have a gun in your home? What, do you just want your family to get raped and murdered?
The lack of nuance is dizzying sometimes.
It was not my intent to say that, I agree with your overall point that it depends on the context and that in most cases a gun will make things more dangerous rather than more safe.
My point was that using logic that applies to both sides won't convince anyone who would want to apply it to the other side.
Yeah I'm not too sure theres much can be done verbally until people stop being their own judge for gun safety. Every argument is defeated soundly by declaring they follow all the right rules, whether they do or not, and I can't say anything about it because they are the exception. Everyone's the exception it seems.
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".
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...
Mine too, Madamme. Mine too
What are we going to do with all those Louisville Sluggers, sitting in the hallway closet?
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.
We'll technically, if she's president, that would be VERY true.
::: spoiler The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Hill:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
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)
America is so fucked. Both parties dont give af about the gun problem. Just one side cares a bit less than the other
I mean, I don't think we need to worry about people getting shot during an unannounced in home break in.
We need to worry about people being shot randomly in the street for no reason, or guns being in the hands of people who are mentally deranged. Those are very different things imo.
Context is important, since the person saying this has a security detail and holds office where the threat of violence against them is real.
The "gun problem" is really an issue with shit like social services and safety nets, not guns per se.
If you talk to a criminal defense attorney and ask what the gov't could do that would see the biggest drop in gun crime, most of them will answer without hesitation: end the war on drugs. If you decriminalize and legalize drugs, you end fights over money and territory in a single fell swoop, because you don't see convenience stores shooting each other up, do you?
She forgot the "a" in her statement. Any intruder in her house is gonna get a COVID vaccination.
Kamala Harris is Vice President of the United States of America and the POTUS is mentally compromised. If she shoots anyone while under threat, which a break in would suggest, she’ll just get a nod and probably even keep her handgun.
If/when she is POTUS she’ll have immunity, per SCOTUS.
You don't need to be POTUS to be found innocent in most states. Many have stand your ground rules, and many more at least have self defense rules.
Granted in her case, she has secret service so it's a moot point.
Shooting people isn't a constitutionally enumerated right of the office of the president
She'd have to order one of her executive employees to do it
According to SCOTUS, anything the President does could be immune to prosecution, including shooting someone, intruder or otherwise.
Not anything, it's only shit the SCOTUS deems as "an official act", so it can be open to interpretation based off the politics of the Supreme Court justices.
What if the person breaking into Kamala's house is Clarence Thomas?
That's one fewer fascist on the deciding committee, then.
I don’t think POTUS or VPOTUS, even pre SCOTUS insane decision on presidential immunity, would be prosecuted for standing ground or engaging would be castle law, even in a state without either. I don’t think any of those offices would be held to duty to retreat either, and rightly so.