President Joe Biden will announce the creation of the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention on Friday, fulfilling a key demand of gun safety activists as legislation remains stalled in Congress, according to two people with direct knowledge of the White House’s plans.

Stefanie Feldman, a longtime Biden aide who previously worked on the Domestic Policy Council, will play a leading role, the people said.

Greg Jackson, executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and Rob Wilcox, the senior director for federal government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety, are expected to hold key roles in the office alongside Feldman, who has worked on gun policy for more than a decade and still oversees the policy portfolio at the White House. The creation of the office was first reported by The Washington Post.

  • GiddyGap
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Most people are not asking to “get rid of guns.” Most people are asking for restrictions that keep people safe, not least our school children, and a ban on military-style weapons like AR-15s. That’s not unreasonable nor impossible.

    • astral_avocado
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      AR-15s are functionally the same as the majority of rifles, they’re semi automatic. Calling AR-15s military style immediately shows you know almost nothing about guns.

      We’d have a better return on our investment banning handguns which are used in more deadly non-police shootings by a whole fucking lot.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I’d call AR-15s military style. It’s ok if you don’t. No matter what you call them, it’s idiotic that random people run around with them.

        • astral_avocado
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Can you define what about them makes you consider them military style?

          And what are you thinking of when you say “random people running around with them”, because legally anyone who purchases them is required to pass an FBI background check to make sure they’re not a felon, among other things.

          • GiddyGap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            I consider semi-automatic and automatic firearms to be military style.

            By “random” I just mean anyone who can pass a background check. The easy access to weapons is what stands out in American society when it comes to gun violence.

            • astral_avocado
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I consider semi-automatic and automatic firearms to be military style.

              So just to be clear, that’s 99% of guns, and automatic is essentially already out of the equation since nobody makes or sells those anymore because of ATF regulations. Virtually all modern guns are semi automatic.

              You do know AR-15s that consumers can buy are already not automatic right?

              • GiddyGap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                You can try to twist my words as much as you want. Nothing new there. All I’m doing is calling for a ban on any weapon that’s designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.

                • BearOfaTime
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  “Twisting your words” (which didnt hapoen) then you go and use sophist goalpost moving.

                  Nice.

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The difficult problem is the ones who decide to do bad things with guns, don’t exactly have much respect for the law. Pass whatever restrictions you want, if someone wants to shoot anyone badly enough, they will find a way.

      • pips@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        But that’s not really a good reason to not have regulations. “People are going to steal your shit if they want to badly enough” does not mean theft shouldn’t be a crime.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, they may find a way, but if it’s harder to find that way, there’s a chance they’ll either change their minds or use a tool that’s less lethal and will kill fewer.

        The US has a unique problem in the Western world, and what sticks out is access to weapons.

    • endhits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      You claim that no one is asking to get rid of guns, and then call for a ban on an entire class of firearms (and a vague one, “military-style weapons”, which is intentionally vague and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of firearms).

      Make a decision please.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        The 2nd Amendment was not written with AR-15s or any other military-style weapons in mind. A full ban on those weapons is reasonable and possible.

        • endhits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          With that logic, the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to the internet, phones, television, photos, or video.

          Your understanding of the second amendment (and firearms in general) is flawed, and any attempt to disarm the working class shall be frustrated. It will not happen. A ban on rifles is not reasonable, it is class warfare.

          • GiddyGap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s not flawed. Your understanding is flawed. You live in fear. Don’t live in fear.

            • endhits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t live in fear. I hope to never have to use my tools, no matter what they are. But just how I need my socket set when my car breaks down, I have my firearms if I need to defend myself or my loved ones.

              • GiddyGap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You must be living in fear of something since you feel the need to be armed all the time. What are you afraid of?

                  • GiddyGap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I wonder if a pocket knife could kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas…

        • BearOfaTime
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Hahahaha.

          Yet more ignorance.

          You could own canons when it was written, and fully automatic weapons already existed.

          It was written with exactly the change in tech in mind, and if you had bothered to educate yourself (by reading things like Federalist Papers or the Adams-Jefferson letters) you’d know this. But you’d rather operate from ideology and hubris.

          • GiddyGap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            This is such a clown argument. Canons cannot be used to kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas. Get real!

              • GiddyGap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                What are you, 12? As usual, you gun nuts have no real arguments.

            • astral_avocado
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Automatic is defacto illegal unless you go through a very lengthy process whereby you register yourself and your weapon and pay money directly to the ATF. Only very few individuals own automatics for this reason.

              Literally every modern handgun and rifle is semi automatic, save for skeet shooting break-action shotguns and some revolvers.

              • GiddyGap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Literally every modern handgun and rifle is semi automatic, save for skeet shooting break-action shotguns and some revolvers.

                So? My point still stands. It’s designed to kill as fast as possible. It should be banned.

                I will always take the side of our school children and a safe society over guns. More guns do not create safety, they exacerbate violence. Most other developed countries do not have this kind of violence, and they do not have the easy access to weapons designed to kill as many as possible as fast as possible.

                • astral_avocado
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  So? My point still stands. It’s designed to kill as fast as possible. It should be banned.

                  So you’re calling for virtually all guns to be banned then except for shotguns and revolvers?

                  • GiddyGap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’m calling for any weapon that’s designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible to be banned.

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  To quote Benjamin Franklin here, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Anyone is free to relocate to those other developed countries you mentioned if they do not want the burden of their own personal liberties and rights, but stripping those rights from everyone else in the USA doesn’t fly well here.

                  • GiddyGap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Anyone is free to relocate to those other developed countries you mentioned

                    Not true. You obviously know nothing about immigration to other countries.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      IMO a more robust mental and other healthcare system and social services would go a lot farther in preventing these kinds of things. Identifying and fixing/containing the people that are so deranged that they would kill others would stop most killings and the kinds of things that lead up to it. Most of the gun crime is a symptom of a much larger problem of people with little to no support lashing out.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        You think Americans are just that much more mentally ill than people in every other developed country on earth? Of course not. The one thing that stands out in the US is easy access to weapons.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes I do but that’s beside the point. The vast majority of gun owners never do anything criminal with them. It’s people with mental health problems who snap or criminals who’re using them to perpetrate other crimes (many of whom would probably not be criminals if they had proper social support.

          Countries with strict gun control haven’t solved the root of the problem. People can still be dangerous without guns and if we can’t trust someone to own a gun we really shouldn’t trust them to have free reign to interact with society without supervision either.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        9 months ago

        Some weapons, including AR-15s, are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Makes a big difference.