# Kamala owns a gun "for personal safety" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465 "2019-04-12T22:54:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/181 "2019-04-14T18:05:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > **RitterSport** , I appreciate your thoughts. My OP was directed more towards her risk assessment than an accusation of hypocrisy. You’ve made the case that she really has elevated risk above and beyond the average citizen. I don’t think I’m convinced of that. Do you have anything you’d like to add to support your argument on that point? Do I have a cite? No, I don’t have a cite for her personal risk relative to the average person. Here’s why I think she’s at elevate risk relative to say, me: 1. She’s a candidate for president 2. She is or is perceived to be anti-gun 3. She’s a former DA and attorney general, so may have many ex-cons angry at her 4. Since she’s running, she’s more in the public eye than other former DAs and attorneys general, making her more of a target for those ex-cons 5. She an African American politician – Obama apparently received more death threats than any other presidents 6. She’s a progressive senator that is getting more attention than non-candidate senators, and that may trigger some loony, domestic terrorist, or other would-be killer There are probably other reasons that I haven’t thought of. Whereas I live in a very safe neighborhood in anti-gun NJ and, as a nobody, no one has any reason to try and kill me. I spend no time in the public eye, haven’t put anyone in jail, and no one cares about my gun views. It seems really obvious that she’s at elevated personal risk compared to your average schmo. But, I can’t officially cite it, so this is just my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/182 "2019-04-14T18:25:50Z")
It occurs to me that there’s really another side to the statistics question. While it’s true that the average person is safer without a gun in the home, it’s not true that a gun is a danger in the home to a specific person. Many people drive without a seat belt, ride their bike without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, drink and drive, drink to excess, have suicidal thoughts, have violent tendencies, are otherwise careless. If I were to have a gun in my home, I’d have it locked up unloaded. I’m also the kind of person who doesn’t smoke, doesn’t ride a bike without a helmet, doesn’t speed (excessively). I’m not depressed and I haven’t committed any domestic violence whatsoever. So, it’s probably likely that having a gun in my house wouldn’t raise my risk as much as it does for the “average person”. Similarly, she spent years prosecuting crimes and has probably seen the results of gun use, careless or otherwise, and would probably be expected to treat a gun in the home with the respect it deserves. If she’s not depressed nor has suicidal thoughts, and she’s at little or no risk for domestic violence, that’s another reason why her risk would be lower. IMO, she’s at elevated personal risk for the reasons mentioned (you may or may not agree). She may also be at reduced risk for gun ownership for the reasons above. Certainly we can agree that many people are careless with guns, don’t store them properly, leave them out where kids find them, are depressed or at risk of domestic violence (either being a perpetrator or victim). If none of those things apply to a specific person, such as Harris or me, the other part of those statistics may be reduced. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/183 "2019-04-14T19:17:03Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I didn’t ‘make’ you cite that Harris was DA of SF. That was never in dispute and no one asked for that information. Yes, you did. You replied to my post that she was DA of SF with _“show, dont tell”_ and “_Show anything that supports your point._” Then bitched about 'broken" wiki links as if you couldn’t Google it yourself. Then you admitted "_I don’t deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career."_ Asking for a cite on something you are\* well aware of \*is a silly immature game. I dont play that game. You can take your future bogus requests for cite for things you are likely already "well aware of " and put them where the sun don’t shine. As WC Fields once said\* "Go away kid, ya bother me. "\* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/184 "2019-04-14T19:18:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > But it WAS disregarding past rulings. San Francisco had already been told it could not ban guns. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/185 "2019-04-14T19:23:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it’s a safe bet to never underestimate the stupidity of Californians. I suspect the vast majority of the 100,000+ voters who supported it had no clue about the previous judicial rulings, and those that did thought it would be good politics to gin up some enthusiasm among the masses, even though it was going to be struck down by the courts. And the politicians who knew full well it was illegal were fine with that. IMHO. They knew that some few people would panic and hand in their guns- less guns “on the street”. IMHO. They also figured that maybe the injunction would take a while, and thus the SFPD would confiscate some guns- which the owners would never get back\*- and thus "less guns “on the street”. IMHO. And anything that harassed and annoyed those evil murderous gun owners was a Good Thing. IMHO. \*yes, legally you’d be allowed to get your gun back, but you’d have to hire a lawyer and sue, and the City of SF has better lawyers. Even if you did get your gun back it’d cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/186 "2019-04-14T19:24:17Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Refresh my memory. Was this one of those 5-4 rulings, widely touted by the “winning” side as just as good as 9-0? And OP is chastising someone for not guessing which way the 5-4 cookie would crumble? > > The way you’ve phrased it I guess it wasn’t one of those 2-1 rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, led by right-winger Diarmuid O’Scannlain whose gun-nut rulings are so off-the-charts that even the Alito-Thomas Scotus overturns them … by 5-4 vote. > > Such moral clarity about guns the American Scotus has given us now. :rolleyes: Both ruling- as I have stated and even cited- were **unanimous,** which is highly unusual. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/187 "2019-04-14T19:27:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yep. I’ve looked too, though, and I can’t find anything that supports your assertion that the Harris had to sign off on the legality of a ballot measure. > **[Nov2019\_Initiative\_Guide.pdf](https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/Nov%202018/Nov2019_Initiative_Guide.pdf)** This is pretty vital to your point, istm. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/188 "2019-04-14T19:33:08Z")
Fron the November 2005 ballot: **How “H” Got on the Ballot** On December 14, 2004 the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance with supporting signatures from Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Dufty and Gonzalez (adopted prior to the expiration of Supervisor Gonzalez’s term of office). The City Elections Code allows four or more Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner. Anyone who wants to peruse the relevant CCSF City Charter (I think the referenced City Attorney is the DA, but I am not sure): [Elections](http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/elections/municipalelectionscode?f=templates%24fn=default.htm%243.0%24vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca%24sync=1) ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/189 "2019-04-14T19:55:36Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > (I think the referenced City Attorney is the DA, but I am not sure) [Nope.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Attorney_of_San_Francisco) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/190 "2019-04-14T20:25:13Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > She put people in jail for over 25 years. As a result, she has had a steady stream of credible death threats since 1990. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/191 "2019-04-14T20:54:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, you did. You replied to my post that she was DA of SF with _“show, dont tell”_ and “_Show anything that supports your point._” Then bitched about 'broken" wiki links as if you couldn’t Google it yourself. Then you admitted "_I don’t deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career."_ > > Asking for a cite on something you are\* well aware of \*is a silly immature game. I dont play that game. You can take your future bogus requests for cite for things you are likely already "well aware of " and put them where the sun don’t shine. > > As WC Fields once said\* "Go away kid, ya bother me. "\* Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/192 "2019-04-14T20:55:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? Would a link to her Wikipedia page showing the dates she was active in law enforcement suffice? I only ask because you already provided that. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/193 "2019-04-14T21:06:38Z")
Could you maybe stop screwing around and back up the assertion that she authorized a bad law to go on the ballot? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/194 "2019-04-14T21:14:09Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Would a link to her Wikipedia page showing the dates she was active in law enforcement suffice? I only ask because you already provided that. Show, dont tell. I want the list of credible death threats starting with 1990. Date order please. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/195 "2019-04-14T21:25:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Could you maybe stop screwing around and back up the assertion that she authorized a bad law to go on the ballot? It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken,\*\* Lance \*\*will say “Show dont tell” even tho he is already well aware of the facts, and even after I provide it you will say it doesnt make any difference because she wanted to let the courts decide- which is exactly what has been said several times now. #113 **Left Hand of Dorkness** : _"His cite is for a law that was ultimately decided to be invalid, but it’s absurd to say “she assuredly knew it was illegal.” Folks obviously have different interpretations of the constitution in this respect, and the city decided their chance of success was worth litigating it in the courts._ **Procrustus**"_Allowing it on the ballot does not equal support. Even if it had a slim chance of passing constitutional review. I don’t think you want partisan elected officials deciding what the people get to vote on. The courts can, (and did) figure it out after the election."_ **Banquet Bear**"\*if the Cit leadership objectively knew that Prop H was illegal then they wouldn’t have signed it into law. The line between “legal” and “illegal” isn’t a well defined line in the sand. So yes I’m being pedantic. Because the law is pedantic. And the claim that “Harris knew it was illegal” because “everyone knew it was illegal” just doesn’t hold up. They signed it into law because they held the opinion that the proposition was legal. The courts ruled otherwise. That’s how things work…the politicians and legal experts who signed the proposition into law held the opinion that what they signed into law was legal. [I/I]" So since, even if I prove my point- it will be pointless as those three have already dismissed it, why shoudl i bother? And honestly since\*\* lance\*\* keeps playing silly “Are you sure you get the concept of, “Show. Don’t tell.”?” games with cites he already is "well aware of’, there no reason to bother. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/196 "2019-04-14T21:26:25Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Nope. Are you sure you get the concept of, “Show. Don’t tell.”? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/197 "2019-04-14T21:36:06Z")
So **DrDeth** rabbit holes aside - Will her advertising her gun ownership impact her nomination chances (or general election chances if she got the nom) at all? I’m guessing not. The single issue gun rights voters will be in the **DrDeth** mode: they have her pegged as a “gun grabber” and this clearly will not change that perception. And most who are for gun control as their prime issue are not against gun ownership per se. They are for assuring responsible ownership if they are owned. My WAG is that gun rights/control will not be a prime issue this cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/198 "2019-04-14T21:43:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken,\*\* Lance \*\*will say “Show dont tell” even tho he is already well aware of the facts, and even after I provide it you will say it doesnt make any difference because she wanted to let the courts decide- which is exactly what has been said several times now. This is quite a chickenshit dodge. Nobody asked if she was DA. Nobody asked if Prop H was put on the ballot. When I said, “Show. Don’t Tell,” I also specified exactly what you were failing to show. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Show. Don’t tell. > > Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there’s a record of this somewhere. Show it to us. This is a post (not the only one) where you make that claim. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Likely the same in most states, but yes, here in CA. Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot. > > They can do so only if they can show the prop isnt legal. Or they can say “I dont think this is legal, but I am letting it get on the ballot anyway”. But yes, they have to sign off on it’s legality. Not whether or not it is proper, right/wrong anything else- legal. > > The courts actually already ruled on almost the same SF law, year before and said it was unconstitutional. This is looking more and more like something you just made up. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/199 "2019-04-14T21:52:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken, I’m not in the “you guys” group. The lynchpin of your argument is that Kamala signed off on a obviously illegal law. You have not even attempted to corroborate that assertion. Yet you have all the time in the world to engage in content free bickering with Lance. If you look back you’ll see that I certainly haven’t been opposed to your position throughout this thread but I’m coming to the conclusion that you are either full of shit or believing someone else who was full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/200 "2019-04-14T21:53:05Z")
Here’s the exchange: \*\*Lance Turbo \*\* _Show. Don’t tell._ My response: What do you want me to show? That ballot propositions in CA have to be cleared for legality before they are put on the ballot? Or that she was DA at that time? Either one is liek asking for proof that the sun rises in the morning, why are you asking for silly cites? Even when i provide them, you’l; just ignore them anyway, like that rest of my cites. **Lance Turbo** \*Show anything that supports your point. Show that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law. You have made several assertion, some of which appear to be factually false, but haven’t really supported anything. When you were asked to support your assertion that Harris wanted to ban all handguns you provided a (broken) link to a Wikipedia page on which Harris’s name did not appear. Try harder.\* So _there’s_ your original response. You asked me to provide cites for stuff you were _well aware of_. You are playing silly cite games. So, i suggest you take this mallet and go over to that pile of sand. I dont play silly cite games. So, just come up with that full list of “credible death threats starting with 1990”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=11)