this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
234 points (92.7% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3673 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (14 children)

We've known how to meaningfully address this for ages - with the side benefit of actually improving lives - and neither party is willing to pursue it as it lies outside partisan wedge-driving around various bans.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bullshit. Democrats would be happy to try ANYTHING to solve this issue.

Republicans have blocked every avenue.

Do not both-sides this extremely one-sided issue.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago

Bullshit. Democrats would be happy to try ANYTHING to solve this issue.

And yet they've pushed literally nothing but various restrictions and bans focusing on firearms rather than attempting to address underlying root issues.

Do not both-sides this extremely one-sided issue.

Don't pretend a failing of both parties is somehow only a failing of one.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mass shootings make up a tiny albeit horrific number of gun injuries and deaths. Suicide is the top spot, domestic assault and other crimes are next, followed by accidents/negligent discharge, and way down at the bottom of the list is mass shooting. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ we need to focus on the whole issue. One thing is clear though, more guns is not the answer.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd argue the quantity of firearms is largely irrelevant unless you only care the thing was done by firearm.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Guns are very effective at killing, something like 5% of people attempting suicide by gun are unsuccessful. Other methods have a much higher rate of survival. Taking the guns out of the equation means more lives saved.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

Taking the guns out of the equation means more lives saved.

May mean more lives saved, even if it were feasible.

Alternatively, addressing the suicide motivations and pressures addresses all means of suicide - not just those by firearm.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So that answer to suicide by guns would be to make people not want to kill themselves so much, maybe by making a less desperate world to live in, such as by ending capitalism -- but you instead just want to make a statistic not look as bad by making suicide less efficient?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I don’t see anything in the article that suggests the new office will only focus on mass shootings. While identifying and treating potential mass shooters would be great, they only account for a small percentage of overall gun deaths.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How about you allow the CDC to register official statistics on gun deaths and injuries?

With that data you can then at least start to shut-the-fuck-up-bitch-slap any gun advocate that claims that "arming teachers is the solution" and work on actual measures that will solve this issue

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Here's the trick... the Nashville shooter had no criminal record and bought the guns 100% legally. There is no gun restriction that would block someone who passes the background check from buying a gun.

BUT:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting

"Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]"

If someone is under psychological care, should that be allowed to pop up on a background check? Maybe not as an instant disqualification the way a court ordered commitment or conviction would, but as an advisory note? Leave it to the discretion of the firearms seller? "By the way, this person is undergoing psych care, you could be held liable if they use this firearm in a crime." That kind of thing?

Because right now, the only stuff that shows up on the background check are things that were ruled on by a judge, and sometimes not even all of those.

For example:

The guy who shot up Michigan State University:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting

"McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[38] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[39] He was originally sentenced to twelve months' probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[35] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[40]"

Arrested for a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, was allowed to buy guns again.

Had he been convicted of the felony, he would have been blocked from owning a gun. The misdemeanor was not a barrier and did not appear on the background check.

Maybe it should have? Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stopping people in therapy from owning guns is a good way to stop people from getting mental health care.

And anyone who has therapy billed to insurance has a mental health diagnosis. That's just the nature of healthcare billing in the U.S.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

I agree, but what's the alternative?

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While I like your idea, also consider the adverse impact: people will sometimes not treat their mental disorders anymore because they could pop up in a background check.

There has to be some more nuance to this. I didn't study law though,so idk how to make it better.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I don't know how to make it better either. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ But when you start looking at the shooters who had documented mental health issues that never showed up on background checks, it gets a little scary.

Right now, it only counts for the background check if it goes through a Judge.

So when the Jacksonville shooter had an involuntary mental health hold under Florida's Baker act, that didn't stop him from later buying the guns completely legally:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ryan-palmeter-named-as-jacksonville-shooter-who-targeted-and-killed-3-black-people-at-dollar-general-store

Same with the Buffalo shooter:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

"In June 2021, Gendron had been investigated for threatening other students at his high school by the police in Broome County.[20][58][64] A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, and he responded, "I want to murder and commit suicide."[65] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][64][66]"

Same with the Parkland shooter:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_high_school_shooting

"The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. At this time, a school resource officer suggested[94] he undergo an involuntary psychiatric examination under the provisions of the Baker Act. Two guidance counselors agreed, but a mental institution did not.[95] State investigators reported he had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However Psychologist Frederick M. Kravitz later testified that Cruz was never diagnosed with autism.[96] In their assessment, they concluded he was "at low risk of harming himself or others".[97] He had previously received mental health treatment, but had not received treatment in the year leading up to the shooting.[98]"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

These guys have quite a few suggestions meant to address prevention up through mitigation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


It's a move long sought by gun-control activists, who have been privately advocating for such an office for years and it comes as hopes of additional gun reform legislation seem unlikely.

Murphy has been a leading proponent of gun control legislation since the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Conn., that killed 20 children and six adults.

The new office is expected to be led by Stefanie Feldman, currently White House staff secretary, who has worked on policy issues with Biden for more than a decade.

Reports about the announcement were praised by advocates like David Hogg, who co-founded March For Our Lives after a mass shooting at his high school in Parkland, Fla. five years ago.

Advocates say Biden's new announcement helps show he is willing to act unilaterally on an issue important to young voters – at a time when he needs to energize this crucial voting bloc ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

"We need a White House team to focus on this issue on a daily basis," said Murray, chair of the Newtown Action Alliance, a grassroots organization started after the shooting.


The original article contains 657 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (28 children)

You know what's a good way to prevent shootings? People not having guns. You guys in the US should try that sometimes...

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (38 children)

OR....we could actually tackle the problem at it's core and create meaningful changes that would curb the violence over all without even touching guns:

  • Ending the War on Drugs

  • Ending Qualified immunity

  • Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.

  • Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.

  • Single Payer healthcare

  • UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.

  • End for profit prisons

  • Enforce the laws already on the books

  • Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.

  • Increase the minimum wage

  • Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.

  • Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.

  • Banning Insider Trading for Congress

  • Term limits

  • Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Very good, very nicely done list. Add to it strict gun control and it will be very close to perfect

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›