Which has what to do with Harris keeping a gun in her home?
Moderating: We have a major rule, attack the post and not the poster.
This is pretty much attacking the poster. Stop this.
I own a shotgun that I have to use every few years to kill a mortally wounded animal.
But the school shootings are too much. I’d support a politician who promised to work to do away with the second amendment and eliminate guns. Not regulate, just totally do away with the damned things.
This misses what many of feel is an important qualifier: if I have reasonable fear for my safety and the trespasser does not retreat. Honestly if armed at home by myself, and I am not armed, my approach would be the same as they instruct in those mandatory corporate workplace active shooter reviews: escape if possible, hide if not, fight as a last resort. The fight is still the option after escape and hide are ruled out. Most home invaders would rather not have contact with the homeowner; they want some stuff and to get out. The stuff I got isn’t worth their effort and not worth me risking killing someone over.
I suspect that Harris honestly feels the same way, and has protection who would do any shooting at this point. But as long as she sells her sincerity this connects her a meaningful number of voters.
(Mind you we’ve never been trespassed by anyone other than a neighbor kid retrieving a ball.)
Though I was talking from a policy point of view (we are all well aware VP Harris is not actually relying on a personal handgun in her bedside draw to protect her from intruders). From a policy point of view saying “I believe in the right of Americans to own a gun in their home for self defense” (which no candidate who has any chance of being elected POTUS is ever going to disagree with, rightly or wrongly) implies that you think Americans should be about to shoot an intruder, that’s what the “self defense” bit of that statement means.
So a candidate saying “if someone breaks into my house I’m going to shoot them” is not any more pro-gun in any practical sense than “I believe in the right of Americans to own a gun in their home for self defense”. But it’s a hell of a better soundbite that might actually win some votes.
Just to make sure: are we arguing whether gun ownership, and presenting the fact of gun ownership in a non-negative light, carries a tacit message in and of itself that gun ownership is morally neutral or good, thus reflecting on the policies that person would take?
(And why the hell did autocorrect want so badly to make that one word “Carrie’s”? And how did this originally get posted in the wrong thread? :P)
As long as it is perceived as sincere. Which was my concern in the discussion in the thread that this discussion began in. Her position in support of being able to own guns for self defense, with reasonable regulations, is well established. Getting that believably through to those gun rights folk who are hearing the lie that she is a “gun grabber” is important politically. I fear those voters might hear it as pandering though. It sounded that way to me.
As far as messaging beyond the political race, I strongly believe in the right of responsible gun ownership. The usual of safe storage, and such. Sending a message, setting a model, that anyone who trespasses is gonna be shot, that is not responsible in my mind. I am very aware that school shootings get attention but that many more kids are killed in their homes as a result of guns owned for self defense not managed responsibly.
No we are arguing whether Harris’s comments on guns and self defense are:
- A good thing for her election campaign
- Are indicative of changes in her (and the Democratic party’s) platform on gun control
I’d argue strongly the answer to 1 is “yes it’s a very very good thing”. This is an excellent answer that shows Harris has very good political instincts, unlike a more reserved factual response (which may not lose any votes but would not gain any either) this answer could actually gain some votes and prevent the collapse of the American Republic next January. Not that it would be the wrong answer in the alternative universe where it’s Mitt Romney who was chosen as GOP candidate, it just makes it more important that she gave the right response.
The answer to 2 is this does not represent any change at all in the Democratic position on gun control. Logically from the point of view of policy this is identical to saying “I believe Americans should be able to own guns in their home for self defense” (which every candidate Democratic or otherwise would say).
Morals have nothing to do with it. I would have strongly disagreed if she’d said “I think Americans should have the right to carry a concealed weapon wherever they want”. That would be a very bad change to the democratic platform on gun control, but it would not make her an immoral person (taking of autocorrect this kept changing to immortal person 
). I think that policy is immoral, but I am fully aware plenty of moral people agree with it (a lot of immoral hateful hucksters do too, but that’s beside the point)
I own several swords, a couple of axes, and a war hammer. I was asked once by a gun supporting friend of mine if I would give up my swords if there were people using swords to kill students. I said, yeah, of course I would, what kind of person do you think I am? If swords were the leading cause of death for children, then I’d be demanding it.
Now of course, something is always going to be the leading cause of death for any demographic, but I think it would be good to get it down to something not under human control. Like cancer, which sucks, f*** cancer, but at least that wouldn’t be something we could directly control other than research means to cure different cancers. Which we should, and do, do.
Yeah it’s a pretty massive indictment of US society that guns are the leading cause of death for young people. Given the number of things young people do to get themselves killed (I know I did a spectacular amount of dumb stuff that could have killed me). I would say that it’s partially due to improvements in other areas that kill lots of young people like drugs and car crashes, but AFAIK both those are on the uptick in the US (cancer deaths are definitely down but that’s not a major cause of death among young people).
Escape and hide are ruled out for us. Escape to where in the dead of winter? (we get 30 feet of snow a year) Town is a 5 mile walk away. Sure, we can get out of our bedroom, but in the winter the gates in the yard are impossible to open (buried in snow). We might be able to scale the dog fence, but then what? I might be able to make it to my car, but it would likely be blocked in by the intruder.
The fun fact that the Sheriffs office has NO one on duty from 11pm to 7am. So, the choice is simple. Fight.
Of course general guidelines may not apply to every individual but even in your very specific case, you have the option that I admittedly neglected to list: give the trespasser a chance to withdraw. Of course though not everyone is always in dead of winter in middle of no where.
The United States is an outlier for gun ownership and for gun deaths in particular in childhood. Most are not in schools or related to automatic weapons. Many are unintentional deaths in the household where guns are kept for self defense, unfortunately often believing that the kids don’t know where the gun is (they do) and frequently not kept locked and unloaded (might slow down having access for self defense). Many are homicides driven by the ready availability.
Of course there are common sense gun laws that could help and allow for those who feel better having a gun for personal safety, and for collectors and hobbyists, to do their thing. But to me the bigger issue is a cultural mindset that fails to appreciate the serious responsibility that accompanies the right. And it often is not “education”; it is cultural framing. I believe that a giggling someone trespassing in my house gonna get shot is an unhelpful message in that regard, even if the pander is effective. Guns are serious. Shooting someone is serious. For me and mine the risks of owning a gun far outweigh the benefits and I respect that others feel differently and have a right to. But respect the seriousness of that choice please.
Of course. I’m not just gonna blast someone because they are in my house.
In the valley where I live, I would be VERY surprised if every household did not have 2-5 guns. Most of us also have 4 legged doggie alarm systems.
Anyone trying such shenanigans up here, are either up to no good, or possibly insane. Or are in such dire straights, and not thinking clearly, that if they found a door they could open, they will (lost skiers).
I live in rural Ohio, and have never heard of a home invasion around here. I’d estimate 95% of the folks around here are armed (and some heavily), and a person would have to be completely out of their mind to break into a home they know is occupied.
Damn i can’t believe this is NBC’s headline - thank God no one got shot last night.
Which is what a Harris without secret service would like do as well, but not what is stated when saying “they’re gonna get shot.”
So, you think in an interview, she would state all of the things she would say and do.
Admittedly a better response would be ‘I’m going to defend myself and my family’ or ‘I’m going to stop the threat’.
It’s hardly a leap of logic to answer the question with ‘I’m going to shoot’. When all else fails, and you have one choice left.
Then you take it.
Please.
I’m going to concentrate on the thread as it applies to Harris specifically, and try to avoid on some of the sidebars of the the thread.
So then, Harris, and how it will play with her road to 2024.
I agree that showing any support for private gun ownership, or use thereof at home, isn’t going to win anyone who was already in the MAGA camp. They’re gone baby gone, issues aren’t at issue here. 
For those former Republicans, now voting Democrat reluctantly, I also doubt it will move the needle much. They may be reassured, but if they were willing to hold their noses and vote for a Democrat anyway, this isn’t a key issue. It may (long term) help keep them voting that way if Trump loses and the Republicans don’t keep pushing further Right in 2028 though.
For true undecided voters, for whom gun rights is important, then yes, although I think it’s a tiny, and probably negligible fraction of voters.
For swing/state voters, who maybe lean (D) on social issues (like abortion as a NOT randomly chosen example) but are afraid of the Feds/Democrats sticking their noses into their own home and choices, this may be quite reassuring.
And, since it’s not been really explicitly mentioned, for Democrats who have gun ownership as their primary wedge issue, it may be detrimental.
BUT.
In general (and that’s all I can say, as each person has their own quirks) I would say that the majority of the latter are in states that are otherwise safely going to vote Democratic anyway. To me, it’s kind of like the various “undecided” Democratic voters who are withholding support for Harris on the Israel/Hamas issue - when we all know damn well how the other side treats people from “Shithole” countries. It’s political blackmail (though I use a loaded term, to be fair, that’s what all focus groups are, so I do not judge them harshly).
So, overall, I do think it’s probably going to work slightly in her favor in the states that are likely going to decide the final verdict.
You’re splitting hairs here. “I keep a gun at home for self-defense” and “If you break into my house I will shoot you” are fundamentally the exact same sentence with the same meaning. The latter just makes explicit what is implied by the former.
I would have disagreed also, unless there were caveats. CCW- complete and thorough background check, fingerprints and all. Gun safety course- can be online.
How would YOU giving up YOUR swords help protect students from being killed by swords? I dont get it.
I guess we are not gonna get away from the “guns are the leading cause of death for children” statistical lie- “three kinds of lies- lies, Damn lies and Statistics”.
If you think the “children” are represented by Little Blonde 8 yo Tiffany holding calculus books, you are wrong. Remember, they can use the word 'child" to include teens up to 18yo. Personally I wouldnt call a 17yo a 'child" but yeah, they are minors, so technically they are.
Up to 14 years it is accidents. But after than, we get into young men, aged 15-17, in gangs, having shootouts and drive bys over drugs. So, yeah, guns kill a LOT of young men, mostly black, in the ghettos, due to gangs and drugs. Thus you can say guns are the leading cause of death or you could just as easily say “gangs” or the failed “war on drugs” (or just “drugs”) or even “poverty in the ghetto”. Way, way too many young men die from this. And suicide - often by gun is there also. Depression among teens is not uncommon.
If they had a gun out I would shoot first, otherwise i would give them a chance to drop shit and leave. I really dont want to shoot anyway.
Sadly, in urban areas, it is not the “home invasion” which is the risk, it is the drugged out guy who doesnt care if anyone is in the house. (But I know rural areas have their drug problems too, eh?) . And those perps can be dangerous, because when they dont care anymore, they do stupid shit.