this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
510 points (94.6% liked)

News

22920 readers
5026 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.ninja 93 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Oh, man. Can you imagine the misery of being appointed to this post? Literally half of the government would hate and despise you and would look for ways to undercut you just to have an extra talking point while they stand in the hall talking to Fox News. And to top it off, what could you actually do to affect change? I sympathize with the poor workers of this office.

[–] Moob@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So…department of education?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Or the EPA, or the CDC, or the IRS, or...

[–] Pips@lemmy.film 3 points 1 year ago

You'd be surprised by how much oil companies hate the DOT.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Also knowing that you’re guaranteed to be “downsized” on the first day of the next party change in the White House.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And imagine how much security you'll have to hire to keep yourself from getting shot.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Next time a Republican takes office they will set this department's budget to 1 dollar, just like the consumer protection bureau. It will get to the point that parts of the government will only work when dems are in charge.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's "Starve the Beast" politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Everyone should know what this is and how and why it is done.

In short, Republicans want to starve a department of funding to a level below which they can not properly function. Then they can claim that agency isn't doing it's job, so we might as well cut it altogether. They are trying to set up these departments and programs to fail and can come in and claim they are saving taxpayers money. What they are really doing is making it easier for corporations and the ultra rich to pollute or side-step their tax obligations. Kind of hard to claim someone is a tax cheat if there isn't an IRS to audit them. Same with the EPA, Amtrak, USPS, DoEducation, and a host of other departments.

Once again, we can thank Reagan for this mess.

[–] astral_avocado@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I was really curious to learn more about CFPB's financing, I found an article about Trump slashing their budget by a quarter but I haven't been able to find anything about their funding year by year.

It's turbo fucked if they haven't refunded them because they've returned billions to consumers by prosecuting fraudulent organizations like Wells Fargo!!

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

They've got to earn their $16 million a year from the gun lobby by doing even less than they did back before Sandy Hook, when it was only $8 million a year.

Isn't it just grand to look back on the last 365 days of gun violence and see what figures people put on it? Tens of thousands of lives. Hundreds of them children.

The pro-gun crowd will bury them just to avoid inconvenience. They don't want to wait for their guns, pass a background check, demonstrate they know how to responsibly handle them or store them securely.

Sure, they'll jerk themselves raw as they publicly congratulate themselves for doing any of those, but the moment someone wants to turn "suggestions" into "laws", they're all too happy to be represented by overweight men stuffed into plate carriers.

For the politicians and manufacturers though, it's strictly business.

Republicans get $16 million a year and a bloc of voters who will tolerate all manner of horrific acts, as long as they happen to other people.

In return, they insist that we mustn't change a thing until every man, woman and child in America has been completely cured of mental illness, to a level far beyond current medical science, so perfectly that nobody ever relapses and all in the few days it takes to load up on semi-automatic firearms.

Not only can you buy their souls, they're not even that expensive.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Whoo boy, that's gonna set off the crazies. And finally Rick Scott will know which Federal agency he wants to eliminate when asked the question. I don't see this as particularly effective or constructive going into an election year. But what do I know?

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

If they focus on policy that isn't gun control it will help. If they only exist to push gun control you're prolly right. Either way, gun stores will prolly win when the nutters go buy more rifles.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yep going harder on gun control stuff is going to do nothing but lose votes for Democrats. Because if you're already anti-gun then you're voting [D] anyway right? Personally I'm never voting for any politician who proposes to limit any freedoms. I'm pro-freedom only. I don't really have much to vote for these days.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] fullstopslash@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To go along with all the prayers.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

An office of prayers is strictly forbidden by the first amendment.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

3, 2, 1...here come the gun nuts...

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (30 children)

As expected every time guns are brought up in a political context, the comments are already full of people talking past each other while ignoring the real issues.

It is exactly as difficult to get rid of guns in this country as it would be to get rid of the electoral college, and the electoral college has done thing like lead directly to the covid pandemic being far worse than it had to be because Trump fired the guy we had in position to warn everyone if China leaked a pandemic.

Instead of discussing that, all you're going to find in a thread like this is back and forth about getting rid of guns (nearly impossible) or decrying the department as redundant (the DHS is proof this is also meaningless) or the like.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

If something is not realistically achievable in the short term, that means we shouldn't be able to talk about it?

I disagree. If we limit discourse only to the immediately achievable we stop talking about how things should be, and how best to get there. Sometimes change happens overnight, sometimes it takes decades. It's worth talking about.

[–] johnthedoe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It definitely feels like a lost cause banning guns. It’s part of the culture. When we banned guns in Australia after one single mass shooting, I don’t believe Australia had nearly as much of a gun loving culture. It was still seen as a tool in the country side for hunting and such. I don’t know the answer to changing culture. It’ll take generations possibly. Smoking was seen like an everyday thing in the 60s. Now it’s disgusting. Perception can change eventually.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“After months of research, we have written a 1000 page report proving the solution is fewer guns.”

Republicans: “MORE GUNS! ARM EVERYONE!”

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the WaPo article:

The new office will report up through Stefanie Feldman, the White House staff secretary and a longtime Biden policy aide who has worked on the firearms issue for years, the people said. Feldman previously worked on the Domestic Policy Council and still oversees the gun policy portfolio at the White House.

So it's going to be a purely policy role within the White House? Well that's disappointing. I was hoping it was going to be somewhere in HHS, or at least DoJ.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

That would likely require explicit funding. Yes this is just to make a headline. He could actually direct the ATF to follow up on straw purchases, improve data sync with NICS and other federal databases if he wanted to do something meaningful.

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Great idea, but I do not have faith that this will be well executed.

If the democrats had the same drive as their republican counterparts, this would be a better country.

load more comments
view more: next ›