... which the next Republican president will turn into the "Office of Investigating Blacks".
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
173 points (94.8% liked)
politics
18928 readers
3041 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Already exists. It's called the justice system.
Yeah I suspect the republicans will make it the department of disarming the “mentally ill” [read: lgbt people]
Been telling people, that is where the "mental health checks" for guns purchases road leads. Particularly the "T," it just takes one congressman from kentucky or florida to say "well trans people kill themselves a bunch so no guns for trans people, add em to that list!"
Exactly and the republicans are already saying it. Like I support reasonable gun control. I’m even cool with a constitutional amendment to go full Australia with it. But the diagnosed mentally ill aren’t the ones doing this. Our gun violence problem stems from our violence problem not our mental illness problem. You’ll stop a lot more mass shootings taking guns from those who’ve been investigated for domestic violence than those who’ve been treated for depression.
Also we have enough mess shootings that I don’t even know how many days if any it’s been since the last one. . Trans people are disproportionately unlikely to be mass shooters.
Personally I'm not in favor of most gun control, I do feel people have a right to defend themselves and most things proposed aren't reasonable from that standpoint. Those convicted of DV already are barred from firearms ownership (iirc except in VT, but the law is federal, idk how that works but whatever lol). Most of our gun deaths are suicides, so actually depression is a major and related issue, but imo depriving depressed people of their rights catagorically is a clear violation of multiple human rights and I don't support that either.
True, but also gun owners are disproportionately not school shooters compared to those who are, it's actually a fraction of a percent of our gun crime, something like .001%, it's way more rare than you think just as a phoenomenon. 99% of gun owners will thankfully never even have to pull the trigger in defense, much less will they likely shoot up a school. The other problems simply must be addressed to get anywhere on this issue.
I highly encourage everyone to get themselves into the firearm community and change it from within. Great community. Lots of great people and its learning a new thing. But there's lots of idiots and if you want better gun control you need to at least be familiar with the thing you're talking about.
and if you want better gun control you need to at least be familiar with the thing you’re talking about.
I want universal healthcare. Should I go to medical school?
You should use the healthcare system and be familiar with the process, wait times and issues
I can be familiar with guns without owning one. What necessary thing do I need to learn about guns that I can't just read about before I can have an opinion on gun violence and regulation?
You only learn so much by reading. Its why every education system has theory and practical. You learn handling, culture, nuances you wouldn't know otherwise. But you also gain credibility. You would also gain power. The power in that if you are a client you gain some attention in the eyes of the companies and groups who sell these products. Like a shareholder, your opinion gains more weight. That weight can be used to tip the culture towards what you believe it should be if you find others with similar weight and views.
You didn't answer my question.
I did.
You absolutely did not. You did not tell me what specifically you can't learn from reading about guns.
I did, its up there if you actually read it.
This is what you said:
You only learn so much by reading. Its why every education system has theory and practical. You learn handling, culture, nuances you wouldn’t know otherwise. But you also gain credibility. You would also gain power. The power in that if you are a client you gain some attention in the eyes of the companies and groups who sell these products. Like a shareholder, your opinion gains more weight. That weight can be used to tip the culture towards what you believe it should be if you find others with similar weight and views.
Nowhere there does it say what I would learn from a gun that I couldn't find out by reading. No one is denying that a person with a gun is more powerful than a person without a gun. That is also something I can learn by reading.
Yea it does. And I did not say powerful as a result of owning a gun. I said powerful in that your opinion has more weight to being more knowledgeable.
Gotta be honest, and not trying to be rude but you're showing a good example why just reading is not a great way to learn something. You miss a lot of things.
So now not only do I have to own a gun in order to have an opinion about gun regulation, I can't have an opinion on it because "I miss a lot of things?"
That's quite the gatekeeping you're doing.
That is your interpretation but was never said
Feel free to clarify.
I'm going to respectfully decline as this is feeling too much like a reddit thread at this point.
Ok, im became and actuary and I'm earning 6 figures updating plans pricing working at BlueShield. What now?
Pass your P/1, then FM/2, then pass the ATPA, after pass the SRM, then the FAM, then ASTAM or ALTAM, don't forget the PA Plus 3 fellowship exams then you can voice your opinion. Or reread what I wrote because it wasn't saying you need all that to have an opinion
Honestly a tall order. From the debate below it seems you are of the opinion that one's argument has no validity unless you're one of "us". Fine I get it, but as for the established community maybe they need to self govern a bit since there is quite the chunk that practically fetishize firearms.
I used to be quite into the community but was nearly shouted out whenever I brought up responsible gun control and education. So yea maybe the community needs to do a better job of shaking out the crazy before asking those who don't understand or fear firearms to come join.
My opinion isn't that unless you're one of us your opinion isn't valid. But it is the opinion of many people. Can a straight guy give their opinion or create laws about LGQTB culture in a country and have it be valid. Sure. But isn't their more weight, insight and intelligent choices when it comes from within the community? I bring that up because in my area I'm seeing parents trying to create rules in the education school that outright ban the topic. Guess where its coming from.
You and myself and others are shouted out because that sub culture hasn't grown but its there. Many gun owners are responsible. Many hate irresponsible ones because it brings heat on them but also because it is dangerous and nobody wants idiots around them in possession of dangerous things. But the culture had been insulated and become an echo chamber. Change will only come from within.
The issue is that if you don't understand firearms, you really can't write effective legislation for them. You need to have some knowledge on the subject in order to know what needs to be done to prevent the issues they cause. It's not that you need to be in the community, it's just that you need knowledge. If you lack that knowledge you'll just look stupid when you discuss it with people who do have it, and they'll not listen.
Yea I'm pretty sure most people have a decent knowledge of what a gun is and what it does. The problem is the level of knowledge is never enough for the vocal group of gun enthusiasts that treat the firearm as their new deity. I don't need to learn field strip every model of Eastern European rifle to say hey maybe we should do something about letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry have access to a death tube the same day they ask for one after they rant about minorities.
My apologies to Tom and Harry, Dick you are on your own though.
I agree with general restrictions it's enough, but frequently when people are trying to restrict pieces of hardware things can get pretty dumb. You need knowledge to do that.
That's fair, at that point though you can bring in specialists though to assist and inform.
Hopefully they'll look at what could have been done to resolve each shooting instead of dumb, knee jerk reactions that don't resolve the problems.
For example:
The Allen, Texas mall shooter:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Allen,_Texas_mall_shooting
"Garcia was then enlisted in the U.S. Army in June 2008, but he never completed basic training: he was terminated after three months due to mental health concerns.[38][39] Because this was an administrative separation, rather than a punitive discharge, Garcia's termination by the Army would not show up on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[40]"
If the Army can't have you because they think you're mentally unstable before you even finish basic training, maybe that's thr sort of thing that NEEDS to be in a background check. Ya think?
This wasn't a case of buying through a gun show loophole, or an illegal purchase. Guy had no crimimal record, passed the background check, and bought the gun.
The problem is "What goes into the background check?"
"Mental health issues" != Violence issues
Mental health issues are already a blocker on gun ownership, but only if it's adjudicated in court.
Maybe that needs to change for people ejected from the military.
The Uvalde shooter walked into a gun store, and they let him walk out with an AR-15, which he immediately used to shoot up a school.
Unless we severely restrict who can and can’t legally purchase a firearm, nothing will change. There needs to be background checks, licensing for everyone wanting to buy with a requirement to renew every year (with a test), and mandatory waiting periods. Toss anyone not following these rules in jail for a bit, double if they’re selling firearms outside of the rules.
I’m not saying nobody should have guns. I’m saying people should have to prove they’re capable of safely using one, and that they’re of sound mind when they purchase one. That’s it.
He had no criminal record, so passed the background check.
That being said, there were MASSIVE red flags that COULD have been background check worthy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting
"Ramos' social media acquaintances said he openly abused and killed animals such as cats and would livestream the abuse on Yubo.[128] Other social media acquaintances said that he would also livestream himself on Yubo threatening to kidnap and rape girls who used the app, as well as threatening to commit a school shooting.[126] Ramos' account was reported to Yubo, but no action was taken.[126][129] Up until a month before the shooting, Ramos worked at a local Wendy's and had been employed there for at least a year. According to the store's night manager, he went out of his way to keep to himself.[130] One of his coworkers said he was occasionally rude to his female coworkers, to whom he sent inappropriate text messages, and would intimidate coworkers at his job by asking them, "Do you know who I am?"[92] Ramos' coworkers referred to him by names including "school shooter" because he had long hair and frequently wore black clothing.[131]"
So, if you want to block people like this from passing a background check, what do we do?
Make social media platforms like Yubo mandatory reporters? "Hey, we have this user who may, in fact, be psychotic, just thought you should know!"
Or mandatory reporting of the inappropriate texts? Do you hold Wendy's or the cell carrier responsible for that?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Biden on Friday will announce the creation of a new office for gun violence prevention, an escalation of the administration’s efforts to tackle the issue amid stalled progress in Congress, according to four people briefed on the action who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that were not yet public.
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.
Zeenat Yahya, director of policy at March for Our Lives, a student-led organization founded after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., said such an office would improve coordination between government agencies that have roles in combating gun violence.
He played a key role in passing the 1994 assault weapons ban, and he became President Barack Obama’s point person on guns after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
As a candidate, Biden promised to take action, citing the assault weapons ban, a 10-year measure that expired in 2004, as evidence of his ability to overcome the National Rifle Association’s opposition.
The bipartisan law expanded background checks for some gun buyers, barred a larger group of domestic violence offenders from purchasing firearms, and provided millions of dollars for mental health services and school security initiatives.
The original article contains 771 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!