In any event, the OP's criticism of Harris dealt with what amounts to professional incompetence, including improperly maintaining criminal and mental health records and failing to spending money actually allocated for treatment of mental illness. These are issues of professional ineptitude and negligence, rather than gun control, as careful record keeping and mental health treatment are generally supported by both gun control and gun rights advocates.
You cannot wish away these serious issues with relatively mundane talking points that likely apply to virtually all Democrats seeking the Democratic Senate nomination. Similarly, your prior accusation that Democrats who don't support Harris effectively support Republicans is insulting, offensive, and hardly likely to convince anyone of Harris' individual merits or qualifications to be Senator from CA.
I would also note that blanket and unquestioning opposition to the death penalty and a tactical refusal to be "hard on crime" is certainly not a position supported by all or necessarily most Californians, Democrat or otherwise. For instance, even President Obama and former AG Holder, opponents of the death penalty, sought it against Tsarnaev after the Boston Marathon Bombing, as it was available and appropriate (and even a liberal MA jury agreed).
Simply, instead of professing the wonders of how Harris might have once been called the "female Barack Obama," officiated at a same-sex wedding, or published a political ad about the working class, either substantively deny the allegations in the OP or explain why in an era where most Democrats are concerned about mass shootings and demand effective background checks, we should excuse or ignore Harris' inability to perform the requisite duties of her elected position of California AG, i.e., properly maintaining criminal and mental health records and utilizing all funds allocated for treatment of mental illness, as per President Obama, all absolutely essential to mitigate the scourge of the criminal misuse of firearms.