“I’m a gun owner; Tim Walz is a gun owner,” Harris said.

“I did not know that,” Winfrey replied.

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris added. “Probably should not have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.”

The article has a video clip. I love the bullshit "probably..." It's a 100% certainty she spoke with her staff and workshopped the phrasing and presentation of gun stuff. Plus I bet she practiced her lines. No American politician is going to wing it when talking about guns.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Killing in self-defense isn't a bizarre reaction, but hanging on discussing such scenarios, bringing them up unnecessarily, fantasizing about them, these are pathological behaviors that suggest using the extremity of the situation as a moral pretext for getting off on murdering someone (especially a dirty poor)

[–] SpiderFarmer@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

Oh, no disagreement there. I ain't fantasizing that, nor is that a worry for most folks, even those living in rougher sides of town. The only people wanting to do any killing are these rich fucks.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're scolding me over a complete distortion of the facts. The vast, vast majority of home invasions are intended to be while no one is home, so you will have no cause to shoot someone because either you aren't there (this is most likely) or you are there and you will scare them off with a threat (if not your mere presence). Cheshire Home Invasion situations are so rare that there's a reason many people outside of Connecticut know its name, because this scenario of sub-human sickos aiming to break in while your family is home and murder you happens less often than people getting struck by lightning.

Fantasizing about shooting people is pathological. Do better.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's common courtesy when you make a citation on a forum like this, that you actually link to it. I must assume this is the report you mean, which, if so, you misread or misrepresented, because what it actually says is 7% of home invasions involve violent victimization (in most cases just assault). Anyway, it's my fault for inviting us to get too stuck in the weeds.

I'm never said people shouldn't take measures against burglary, and on the contrary have nothing against having locks, deadbolts, cameras, security systems, and signage for the latter two. Probably the main thing that I have against keeping guns is that you're more likely to hurt yourself or a family member or someone than a Home Invader, which I'm sure you'd agree is only prudent.

But even that's sort of a distraction because my main gripe wasn't with people keeping guns but with them focusing on this specific circumstance of killing a home invader as an automatic response. As another poster said, it is both more humane and more sensible to hypothetically use the gun mainly as a means to threaten the hypothetical Invader. They aren't going to be interested in attacking someone with a gun, it makes things easier if you're being a moron (as many people apparently are) and just mistaking some innocent person for a threat, and it's also not just treating the Home Invader's life like it's de facto fit to be ended by summary execution. But no, Americans would rather play King of the Castle and hype themselves up to murder the Unworthy, indeed getting so excited that they are, again, more likely to shoot their own family member or some random drunk guy who thought he was at his own house or something.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You have repeatedly characterized one specific type of preparation as "pathological".

I have never once said this, you continue to wildly misrepresent me. I'm tired of repeating myself, but what I'm talking about is a) fixating on this home invasion scenario and b) shoot-on-sight. Those things are pathological. Keeping a gun is probably a bad idea for statistical reasons already mentioned, but it's not pathological in any further sense.

You ignored most of what I said. Yes, obviously if you threaten rather than bluff, that means you are willing to follow through. I cited the other poster's example, of having a gun pointed at the door and informing the burglar that you'll shoot if they open it. Obviously I am not saying you make a bluff and then let them strip the shirt off your back if they call the bluff. Obviously.

This only message that a home invader should hear and believe is that entering a home is suicidal.

But if that isn't true, what good is blustering? It seems much more productive to tell the truth, that attacking someone may be suicidal, since it still protects the safety of the resident while accounting for the more likely scenario that the person taken for an invader is not one.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Stop gaslighting. You have misrepresented such preparations as "fantasizing about shooting people" and declared such preparations to be "pathological".

"Gaslighting is when someone disagrees" You're being ridiculous. Look back, I never once said that getting/keeping a gun for self defense was pathological beyond the thing I mentioned a few times now about injuring non-home-invaders. I've explained this over and over, but you really want to brow beat me into a ridiculous position because, I don't know, maybe I offended your sensibilities. It doesn't matter.

Meanwhile you've regressed to liberal Castle Doctrine fantasies, ignoring all the points about avoiding misunderstandings and maybe even caring about human life. We haven't moved an inch, this conversation is pointless.

Edit: I don't care to investigate it at this point, but I'm pretty sure you literally just misread/misinterpreted what I said as a more hardline position than what it was, and no number of paragraphs of explaining what my position is will dissuade you, you just accuse me of "gaslighting" you like some miserable twitter dork, when if you were actually right you could very easily produce evidence.

This conversation is a waste of time. Stay in your Castle reciting liberal mantras about social contract theory, I don't give a shit.

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

❄

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

🫎

[–] Ivysaur@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

lmfao idiot. you still wearing a mask for covid big boy. please talk to me more about being denigrated for taking health and safety seriously. do it. I dare you.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Every time I get COVID, certainly. It's the responsible, civic-minded thing to do.

[–] Ivysaur@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Wrong answer! You can be an asymptomatic carrier at any point while Covid is still hanging around the general public, and especially while no one is taking mitigation seriously, you caring guy, you! You should be wearing a respirator any time you will be away from your home. You should be wearing one any time you would be in public, not just while you are sick, until Covid is gone; extinct, or cured. If you actually cared, you would know this. But of course! You’re a regular Semmelweis, only instead of being hanged for washing hands you’re at the stake for shooting and killing people. Of course you care!

May we never meet.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Respirators do not filter their exhaust. They protect the individual wearing the respirator. They do not protect the public. With one exception, your advice is nonsensical.

May we never meet.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[–] Ivysaur@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So let’s get this straight, smart guy. I asked:

you still wearing a mask for covid big boy

You responded:

Every time I get COVID, certainly. It's the responsible, civic-minded thing to do.

and now you say:

Respirators do not filter their exhaust. They protect the individual wearing the respirator. They do not protect the public.

…by your own words, if they don’t protect the public from an infected person, and you are only wearing them after you’re already infected…well, then I DEFINITELY hope we never meet!

Of course none of this matters because you and I both know you’re just full of shit.

[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Ivysaur@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To reduce spread of respiratory diseases, we need to understand the mechanisms of spread. There is strong and consistent evidence that respiratory pathogens including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, tuberculosis, and other coronaviruses such as MERS and SARS-1, are transmitted predominantly via aerosols. Infected individuals, whether symptomatic or not, continuously shed particles containing pathogens, which remain viable for several hours and can travel long distances. SARS-CoV-2 is shed mainly from deep in the lungs, not the upper respiratory tract, and the viral load is higher in small aerosols (generated in the lower airways) than in larger droplets (generated in upper airways). Whereas large respiratory droplets emitted when people cough or sneeze fall quickly by force of gravity without much evaporation, those below 100 µm in diameter become (bio)aerosols. Even particles tens of microns in diameter at release will shrink almost immediately by evaporation to the point that under typical conditions they can remain airborne for many minutes. In contrast with droplet transmission, which is generally assumed to occur via a single ballistic hit, the risk of airborne transmission increases incrementally with the amount of time the lung lining is exposed to pathogen-laden air, in other words, with time spent indoors inhaling contaminated air.

Respiratory infections may theoretically also be transmitted by droplets, by direct contact, and possibly by fomites (objects that have been contaminated by droplets), but the dominant route is via respiratory aerosols. The multiple streams of evidence to support this claim for SARS-CoV-2 include the patterning of spread (mostly indoors and especially during mass indoor activities involving singing, shouting, or heavy breathing), direct isolation of viable virus from the air and in air ducts in ventilation systems, transmission between cages of animals connected by air ducts, the high rate of asymptomatic transmission (i.e., passing on the virus when not coughing or sneezing), and transmission in quarantine hotels when individuals in different rooms shared corridor air but did not meet or touch any common surface.

The certification of surgical masks for particle/bacterial filtering efficiency (P/BFE) does not reflect equivalence to respirators as the filtration is typically compromised by poor face seal. The ASTM F2100-21 P/BFE certification, for example, requires at least 95% filtration against 0.1-µm particles and at least 98% against aerosolized Staphylococcus aureus, but this is on a sample of the mask clamped in a fixture, not on a representative face. In terms of filtering aerosols, N95 respirators outperform surgical masks between 8- and 12-fold. The effectiveness of certified surgical mask material against transmission when used as a filter was demonstrated in a hamster SARS-CoV-2 model. Infected hamsters were separated from non-infected ones by a partition made of surgical mask material; when the partition was in place, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by 75%.

In addition to protecting the wearer, respirators provide very effective source control by dramatically limiting the amount of respiratory aerosols emitted by infectious individuals. In one study, risk of infection was reduced approximately 74-fold when infected, and susceptible individuals both wore well-fitting FFP respirators compared to when both wore surgical masks. Figure 2 reproduces Bagheri et al.’s demonstration of the dramatic decrease in total inward leakage for different types of respirators and surgical masks.

Source: Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

In case it's not obvious from this already, not all respirators have exhalation valves. Surely I don't need to provide a source for this statement, and if you don't believe me you can google this yourself.

Also, lmfao at you appealing to the CDC while contradicting their advice. According to the CDC themselves:

Respirators and masks may filter particles and block droplets when you exhale (breathe, talk, cough, etc.). This reduces the risk that a person with a respiratory infection will spread germs to others. If you have a respiratory infection, there’s a chance you could pass your infection to others. Wearing a respirator or mask reduces the number of germs that you exhale into the environment around you. This is one way to prevent the spread of respiratory germs from person to person, like wearing a mask to prevent the spread of the germ that causes COVID-19.

How Well It Protects You: NIOSH Approved elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs) and elastomeric quarter-mask respirators (EQMRs) protect you against gases, vapors, and particles when equipped with the appropriate filter, cartridge, or canister.

How Well It Protects Others Around You: Some EHMRs and EQMRs, such as those without exhalation valves, filter the air you breathe out and you can use them to protect others around you. If the EHMR or EQMR do not filter the air you breathe out, you should not use them if your goal is to protect others around you.

How Well It Protects You: NIOSH Approved FFRs, such as N95 respirators, protect you against particles. They do not protect against gases or vapors.

How Well It Protects Others Around You: Some NIOSH Approved FFRs have exhalation valves that open to let air escape when you breathe out. This makes it easier to breathe and can make the respirator more comfortable to wear. An FFR with an exhalation valve may not protect others as well as one without a valve.

Without exhalation valves: NIOSH Approved FFRs without exhalation valves filter the air you breathe out. You can use this type to protect others around you.

With exhalation valves: If the NIOSH Approved FFR has an exhalation valve, some of the air will come out of the exhalation valve and reduce the level of protection to others. Wearing one of these will provide similar levels of protection to others as BFCs and some disposable face masks and cloth masks.

Table of respirator and mask performance from the CDC site linked below. Too large to do proper alt-text for

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/publicppe/community-ppe.html