Vice President Kamala Harris told a visibly shocked Oprah Winfrey on Thursday that an intruder who breaks into her home would be “getting shot, sorry.” With a laugh, she followed up: “I probably shouldn’t have said that. My staff will deal with it later.”
So I do actually have a problem with that attitude towards gun ownership (I have been a victim of a home invasion burglary and still think I would have been drastically worse off of i’d had a gun and used it). The acceptance of widespread gun ownership for self defense is one of my main problems with living in America (that don’t involve POTUS 45). But despite that am still absolutely fine with Harris saying this.
Winning this election is all that matters, and like it or not this kind thing does resonate with voters (especially median swing state voters) so if she can say it believably, then she should say it and anyone on the left who has a problem needs to STFU.
Whether this is cynical pandering or a deeply held belief is irrelevant. The 47th president of the US whoever they are, is not going to ban gun ownership for self defense or even attempt to do so. Any attempt to do so would be political suicide and would doom any attempt at achievable gun law reform stone dead. So by all means the Democratic candidate can go ahead and say this.
Though frankly, at present her home, Number One Observatory Circle, is well guarded, so a break-in seems really unlikely. And even if it did occur, she’s not the first one who’d be shooting at the intruder.
Harris might be drawing a distinction between herself and Hunter Biden, who wasn’t allowed to own a gun. Harris is saying she is allowed, she’s proud enough of it to admit it and if any fools want to try to pull a home invasion on her like they did on Paul Pelosi, they will be greeted by Messrs. Smith and Wesson.
This of course applies to her pre-VP life as she currently lives in the Naval Observatory and hence probably does not need a piece for personal protection as a phalanx of Secret Service and Navy personnel will respond appropriately if someone is bold enough to violate this property.
I appreciate her straight up telling Trump to stop lying about her being a gun-grabber. From what I understand of her gun policy, it’s common sense things that would do a lot for safety while inconveniencing the fewest gun enthusiasts out there. But I’m also Canadian so I get to see what it looks like in practice: lots of guns across this land but only (by and large, it’s not perfect) in the hands of people who have demonstrated that they can be responsible gun owners before they ever get near one. And when it comes to those AR-15 style rifles with bottomless mags that can kill dozens of people in a few seconds? Yeah, we don’t sell those here. It’s not controversial here to say that no one needs that kind of weapon if they aren’t active duty military.
Yeah I am assuming this was a comment on her gun ownership prior to having 24/7 round the clock protection (which I’m assuming DAs do not?)
In fact thats another good reason why saying this makes sense politically and makes me actually happy, despite my beliefs on gun ownership. To speak against gun ownership for self defense while having 24/7 armed secret service protection is an obvious angle for the GOP to attack you. Saying this nullifies that.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of her statement. It has the effect of 1) making guns look good, 2) making gun control or confiscation harder, 3) making self-defense shootings look like a good thing and 4) reinforcing Castle Doctrine or Stand-Your-Ground.
But, it’s an election. And it’s usually easier for a Democrat to pivot to the right than for a Republican to pivot to the left.
Don’t forget that Tim Walz is a gun owner and avid hunter (and something he has often talked about…not at all a topic he avoids). It’d be a point for republicans to pick on if Harris and Walz were not on the same page (or near enough) when it comes to guns.
If you are trained- which she is- and have a real need- which she clearly does and did (AG of CA and prosecutor)- and the gun is properly stored- which she mentions- then having a gun is a good choice. Do you think police officers should not own guns at home either? I mean, if anyone should have a gun at home it is a law enforcement person with daily death threats.
She doesnt want radical gun control or confiscation, and that is a loser political standpoint. (She is saying she would like new sales of 'assault weapons " banned- which is hardly radical, as th was the law for some time. ).
Castle doctrine is one thing- do you need to kill a burglar? is an Interesting moral question. But someone breaking into Harris’s house is not there to steal the silver, it is to assassinate a political figure- ie Harris.
I’d argue nothing Harris can do or say as a presidential candidate can have the slightest effect on any of that. Hell almost nothing she could do as president could have any effect on that.
There’s no problem with either self-defense shootings nor castle doctrine. The problem is the caricature of those things that the Right Wing in this country has been pushing: Their version of self-defense is that everyone with a gun should be constantly afraid of anyone without a gun, and that therefore all gun violence is justified, and their version of the Castle Doctrine is that anyone who exists on the same planet as one’s home is a threat to one’s home. The real things, which are what she’s describing, call a sharp contrast to these right-wing mockeries.
It’s a sidetrack to the OP but I’d argue against this. If you want to stop someone stealing your electronics and bicycles (while you are in the house) then have a gun is a “good” choice as long as you think killing someone to protect your electronics and bicycles is morally acceptable.
But as a means to stop someone from assassinating you because of actions you carried out at district attorney it seems like a pretty bad choice. I mean what are the chances a would be assassin is going wake you and stand on your property brandishing a weapon for long enough for you retrieve your weapon and have a fair shootout mano-y-mano?
Exactly. Someone is in your house without your permission and you shoot them, that’s the intruder’s problem. The issue comes when the judge/jury allows you to chase them out of your house and gun them down in your driveway and use self-defense/castle to justify it. But that is not a problem with the doctrine but the interpretation.
You don’t kill a home invader because you think they’ll steal your electronics and bicycles. You kill them because you think they might kill you. If they just wanted the valuables with no violence, they’d break in while you’re not there. If they break in while you’re there, best case scenario, them killing you to make their escape with the loot is their plan B. The only difference with someone like a prosecutor is, often for them, killing you will be the intruder’s plan A, not B.
We live in a rural location/environment. I favor stong gun regulation, but if someone breaks into our house, that is so egregious that I have no second thoughts about grabbing the shotgun under my bed, that’s loaded and ready, and killing anyone that I encounter who doesn’t belong.
Why? Do you think people should not have what they need to defend themselves? A road-rager comes up to you and breaks your window, you’re OK with him beating the ever-loving crap out of you … maybe to death?
I’m in agreement with this. Just some advice, though: if you actually find yourself in this situation, do not tell the cops your goal was to kill the person. Never use the word kill. Your goal was to stop the person. Any death is incidental.