542
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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 97 points 9 months ago

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 103 points 9 months ago

So…department of education?

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 72 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months 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 9 months 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 51 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] astral_avocado@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months 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!!

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago

What are they going to do that the ATF and FBI don’t already do?

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 53 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Prevention of gun violence isn’t exactly the remit of either of those agencies. The ATF focuses on the tracking of and illegal sales of guns while the FBI focuses on crimes committed with them (and other crimes, of course). Neither of those are about prevention of gun violence.

A separate agency that can focus more on the social issues that are behind gun violence could act in many ways that neither of the other two agencies could while not having to worry about drawing focus or manpower, from how those two agencies operate.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They could provide free firearm training courses and encourage young people to take them. Which would help with accidents.

A separate agency that can focus more on the social issues that are behind gun violence

I doubt they are going to give this agency the necessary tools to lower poverty and the wealth gap, lower the rate of single parents, increase healthcare affordability, increase housing production, and destroy the culture of degrading those who try to better themselves. These are the issues that cause people to be unhappy enough with life they chose to murder. Happy individuals with productive lives don't generally decide murder is the correct course of action.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

Maybe not encourage guns to be sold to cartels, unlike the ATF Fast and Furious program. It was supposed to track firearms going south, but just lost them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Actually collect data on police shootings?

[-] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 5 points 9 months ago

Shoot your cat and goldfish instead of just your spouse and your dog

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] spamfajitas@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

People said the same thing about DHS when it was spawned forth into being. Maybe not a great comparison, but I feel like this one has a little more purpose to it other than job creation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 24 points 9 months ago

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 15 points 9 months 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 5 points 9 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago
[-] fullstopslash@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

To go along with all the prayers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago

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

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

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 5 points 9 months 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.

load more comments (63 replies)
[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

“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 12 points 9 months ago

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 9 months 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 9 months 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 ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
542 points (94.3% liked)

News

21676 readers
3028 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. 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