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
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • astral_avocado
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And that’s 99% of weapons, because what’s what guns do, they all kill things with a single trigger pull. You’re asking for a de facto ban and that’s absolutely a losing position.

          And that’s not even to mention that your position effectively means “I only believe the police and the military should have guns”. Because that’s what would happen.

          • GiddyGap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personally, I wouldn’t mind a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but knowing that’s a ways out, I’m just going to call for a ban on weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. And, no, that’s absolutely not 99 percent of all weapons.

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

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

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

        • Narauko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Last I checked the USA wasn’t on any country’s immigration blacklist. You still need to have some kind of useful skill for a work visa, and there are unique costs to international moves, but it’s far from illegal to move away from the US. Additional costs if you want to renounce your US citizenship instead of holding dual citizenship wherever you move to, but that’s a personal decision there unless you move to a place that requires renouncing citizenship as part of gaining it like the US does. Unless you were conflating free as is freedom for free as in no cost, but that would be silly given the context where this entire discussion thread is about freedom.

          • GiddyGap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol. This is just not how it works. There are an excessive amount of obstacles for a US citizen who wants to move to another developed country. Most Americans who want to leave are completely stuck here.