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.

  • Carnelian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pedophiles don’t care about the law either it seems, so would you say we should just get rid of all laws pertaining to that?

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its already illegal to murder, so adding additional crimes to gun possetion is essentially a proxy for making murder double illegal. If a criminal doesn’t care about murder laws, possession laws aren’t going to bother them.

      Your metaphor would be more like saying: pedophilia is already illegal, make giving candy to children who aren’t yours with intent to abduct illegal too. Essentially make pedophilia double illegal (in this instance).

          • Carnelian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            So we can charge them and put them away from society.

            What do you mean? I thought criminals could simply ignore all laws, are you saying it’s possible for laws to have some effect after all?

            • sudo22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              They can ignore them and still murder yes. It happens in the 10s of thousands per year in the US alone. Once you’re caught the law lets society punish these individuals, but the law didn’t pervent the murder. Ergo making it double illegal won’t help.

              • Carnelian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay okay.

                So. Instead of inserting layers of metaphors and renaming a gun ban to “making murder double illegal”, what if we just called it what it is, “making gun ownership illegal”

                You are taking it for granted that it will always definitely be okay to own a gun as long as you don’t commit a crime with it. What we are discussing currently is whether ownership should be a crime in and of itself. On the most fundamental level, do you think a law directly targeting gun ownership could possibly have any effect?

                And before this turns into a whole thing, it may come as a shock for you to learn that I do not personally support such a ban. The article you listed says in quite plain language that higher wages and better opportunity is what decrease crime, after all. The only thing I take issue with right now is the ludicrous assertion that the law has no effect on “criminals” because they will simply break the law.

                I can guarantee you a gun ban would reduce the number of guns, and the strategy of trying to gaslight people into believing it wouldn’t is fundamentally ineffective. If you support ownership then you should want to nip these arguments in the bud as well, as they’re only going to backfire

                • sudo22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh no I was never thinking of a gun ban as the metaphor, my apologies if that’s what came across. I was more so thinking along the lines of what politicians are doing to law abiding gun owners in NM recently (prior to the court restraint). That’s more so what I was calling making murder double illegal and being a useless decree.

                  • Carnelian@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, lol yeah I was talking about tallwookie’s “criminals are not known for caring about the law” slant.

                    New Mexico situation is wild. Unilaterally banning guns in response to a shooting is not a good move, especially when your Sheriff is publicly vowing not to enforce it