Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’

[dogs4thewin]

All I can say is that we don't shoot people here. One, we wouldn't want to. Two, nobody has guns. Well, except for a few bad guys and they mostly shoot each other.

You should try it.

nope it is not worth it and would likely cause more violence than it would prevent anyway

 

[dogs4thewin]

Most of our gun deaths are bad people shooting each other and suicides

Or bad people shooting victims who usually are committin other crimes and oftentimes are legally barred from having guns.

 

[Bradskii]

Most of our gun deaths are bad people shooting each other and suicides

I think you need to concentrate on the good guys who get shot. Especially the very young good guys.

 

[Bradskii]

nope it is not worth it and would likely cause more violence than it would prevent anyway

Then you must be more violent than Australians I guess.

 

[Postvieww]

What is she leading? I know she's leading the polls.

Irrelevant! So was Hillary and we know how that turned out. Trump now has a shot at NY, historically that is unheard of. Polls can be manipulated and most likely are in this case. Kamala is a disaster in an interview just check out the Oprah interview, it was pathetic.

 

[FenderTL5]

and if that is the case no one is forcing you to have guns,

This is true.
The thought of getting rid of them has crossed my mind numerous times. I have no need for them, at all. otoh, I don't know how to get rid of them legally and safely, so I keep them stowed away in a safe place for mostly sentimental reasons.

but to sy that it is (unreasonable) fear to have them is also not the case.

On the topic of "at the ready for defense", self defense, home defense etc there is no other way to couch that discussion. One is defending against the fear of something.
There are other utilitarian reasons to have a gun, if it's part of a job (i.e. law enforcement) or for hunting (just to name a couple examples). I have several guns and most were purchased for hunting. I used to go hunting with my dad and uncles. I haven't been hunting in over 40 years. They're old, probably worthless and too much trouble to unload on someone else (pun intended).
I inherited the Glock from my late father, the other handgun was an impulse buy at the gun show. I don't need nor even want either of them, then nor now.

Also, it is worth teaching your grandson the danger of guns.

If and when the time comes, I will do so.

Moreover, it is not as if if something DOES happen the person cannot be held liable (as usually they can)

I don't quite understand your point. I don't want to be held liable for my grandson hurting himself or another - nor do I want him in that situation either, he's far too young to have his life ruined in that manner.

 

[BPPLEE]

Irrelevant! So was Hillary and we know how that turned out. Trump now has a shot at NY, historically that is unheard of. Polls can be manipulated and most likely are in this case. Kamala is a disaster in an interview just check out the Oprah interview, it was pathetic.

It is concerning that Kamala is now polling higher than Trump on helping the middle class.
Her campaign strategy is working at least in this regard

 

[BPPLEE]

Or bad people shooting victims who usually are committin other crimes and oftentimes are legally barred from having guns.

In my experience bad people have far outnumbered innocent victims.

 

[BNR32FAN]

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” [Harris] said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

“I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice to say you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the second amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws,” Harris said, prompting Winfrey to ask about her gun ownership.

https://wgntv.com/news/politics/harris-if-somebody-breaks-into-my-house-theyre-getting-shot-during-event-with-oprah/

Has there been any problems with incidents involving assault rifles that were legally owned? I don’t recall hearing about any.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The principle is the same.

No I disagree, if you have the opportunity to get yourself and your loved ones out of harms way in a public place then you should, in a matter of home defense it might be more dangerous to try to escape rather than hold up and defend a position in your home. Then there’s the aspect of protecting your property which I personally wouldn’t do but some states don’t seem to have a problem with it. But that’s just me, I don’t want to stand before God one day and have to try to explain why I killed someone because they were trying to steal my personal possessions. I should add that if you’re in a public place and your standing your ground in an effort to protect others from harm then I would say that this would be a justifiable reason to do so.

 

[Hammster]

No I disagree, if you have the opportunity to get yourself and your loved ones out of harms way in a public place then you should, in a matter of home defense it might be more dangerous to try to escape rather than hold up and defend a position in your home. Then there’s the aspect of protecting your property which I personally wouldn’t do but some states don’t seem to have a problem with it. But that’s just me, I don’t want to stand before God one day and have to try to explain why I killed someone because they were trying to steal my personal possessions. I should add that if you’re in a public place and your standing your ground in an effort to protect others from harm then I would say that this would be a justifiable reason to do so.

They are both self-defense.

 

[JosephZ]

Has there been any problems with incidents involving assault rifles that were legally owned? I don’t recall hearing about any.

Most assault style weapons used in recent mass shootings have been legally purchased or owned. A few of the many cases where assault style weapons were legally owned by the shooter:

Las Vegas, Nev.—Shooter with more than 20 assault style weapons
and 12 bump-fire stocks killed 58 people and wound over 500 others.
Sutherland Springs, Texas— Ruger AR-556 Rifle; killed 26
churchgoers.
Uvalde, Texas— AR-15-style weapon killed 19 children; 2 teachers
Buffalo, New York— AR-15-style rifle killed 10 shoppers
Boulder, Colorado—Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic killed 10
people including a police officer
Dayton, Ohio— AR-15-style weapon equipped with a 100-round
ammunition magazine to kill nine people and injure over 25 others
in less than 30 seconds at a local bar
El Paso, Texas— AK-47-style weapon killed 22 at a Walmart.
Gilroy, Calif.— AK-47-style weapon wounded 17 and killed three
including a 13-year-old girl and 6-year-old
Pittsburgh, Pa.— AR-15-styleweapon killed 11 worshipers. The
deadliest anti-Semitic attack committed against the Jewish
community in America.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Most assault style weapons used in recent mass shootings have been legally purchased or owned.

No that’s incorrect. People just don’t know the definition of an assault rifle. Assault rifles have the capability to be fully automatic. The only incidents involving fully automatic rifles were not legally owned. Looks and clip capacity do not fall into the category of assault rifles.

 

[JosephZ]

No that’s incorrect. People just don’t know the definition of an assault rifle. Assault rifles have the capability to be fully automatic. The only incidents involving fully automatic rifles were not legally owned. Looks and clip capacity do not fall into the category of assault rifles.

The Department of Justice defines an assault weapon as a civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon. So when you hear a politician or a member of law enforcement using the term assault weapon, those are the types of weapons they are talking about.

 

[Postvieww]

It is concerning that Kamala is now polling higher than Trump on helping the middle class.
Her campaign strategy is working at least in this regard

If you believe polls. I do not.

 

[ralliann]

So she’s now for Stand Your Ground?

She also has massive security to guard and stand for her.

 

[FenderTL5]

No that’s incorrect. People just don’t know the definition of an assault rifle. Assault rifles have the capability to be fully automatic. The only incidents involving fully automatic rifles were not legally owned. Looks and clip capacity do not fall into the category of assault rifles.

It is correct.
All of the examples listed meet the legal definition of an assault weapon.
In the USA assault weapon ≠ the military term assault rifle in legal terms.
This is something I did not know two hours ago.

Adding to the list, the assault weapon used in the nearby Covenant School shooting in my neighborhood, killing six including three 8/9 year old children was purchased by the perpetrator legally.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Department of Justice defines an assault weapon as a civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon. So when you hear a politician or a member of law enforcement using the term assault weapon, those are the types of weapons they are talking about.

That’s funny because when you take away the fully automatic capability of the firearm it’s no longer a military weapon. It’s like calling a car a race car when the engine has been swapped from a 1000 hp engine to a 200 hp engine and all of the parts have been replaced so that it is in compliance with DOT regulations. But because it was originally designed as a race car it should be considered illegal even tho it meets DOT regulations just because people like racing them on public streets? This classification is hilarious, so all weapon manufacturers have to do is make a new design that’s not intended for the military and put it on the market to civilians first then afterwards they can design it for military use then it’ll be legal because it wasn’t originally designed for the military? How retarded is that? It shouldn’t matter who or what it was originally designed for as long as it meets the requirements of the law then it’s not illegal to own.

 

[BPPLEE]

That’s funny because when you take away the fully automatic capability of the firearm it’s no longer a military weapon. It’s like calling a car a race car when the engine has been swapped from a 1000 hp engine to a 200 hp engine and all of the parts have been replaced so that it is in compliance with DOT regulations. But because it was originally designed as a race car it should be considered illegal even tho it meets DOT regulations just because people like racing them on public streets? This classification is hilarious, so all weapon manufacturers have to do is make a new design that’s not intended for the military and put it on the market to civilians first then afterwards they can design it for military use then it’ll be legal because it wasn’t originally designed for the military? How retarded is that? It shouldn’t matter who or what it was originally designed for as long as it meets the requirements of the law then it’s not illegal to own.

It's a ridiculous term. Every weapon is an assault weapon, that's what makes them weapons, they're used to assault people.
A knife, a tire iron, a slingshot are all assault weapons.
If only military style rifles are assault weapons, what are other weapons? Non-assault weapons?

 

[JosephZ]

Are you sure about that? Not a single agent posted inside the home?

If a residence has previously cleared and a perimeter secured, why would an agent need to be inside the house at all times?