politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
You're linking an article about a study funded by Biden's justice department and the other poster is right about your both sides comments
The OPs article is about an office Biden is creating for this exact type of research too.
I understand the frustration. I have a 13 year old who his mom has tucked away in gun loving rural America.
But your both sidesisms are not helpful.
Who wants to bet this is the only thing we will ever hear of this study?
To that point - where have you seen it mentioned, cited, referenced, etc. anywhere, even in threads such as these?
In contrast, how often do you see PR campaigns around Giffords or Everytown nonsense?
Care to support that?
Right - Biden, of AR-ban fame.
It remains to be seen whether or not this office will support any research or just parrot Everytown.
I don't believe you do, given your refusal to hold blue team accountable for their failings here in doing anything beyond focusing on symptoms. I'd argue such willful partisan blindness is less helpful.
From the article you posted.
The rest is math. They decided to do the project in 2019. Grants take anywhere from 8-20 months to get funded. It also takes time to put together the application.
Biden's Justice department funded this research. And since you're being rude, for ages was clearly bullshit too. You linked an article talking about research that was conceived in 2019.
Ah, I see - you argue that a department is Biden's for nothing more than his being President at the time.
Don't project.
You could argue it was exaggerating, sure. It doesn't change the information has been available and continues to be summarily ignored by both parties.
The NRA (and GOP), have been stifling this type of research for years. So yes, I doubt the justice department under Trump would have approved their research grant.
I forgave your hyperbole the first time, as you said, it was an exaggeration. Then you came at me like I don't care about my son because you think I have political bias.
I'm an anarcho-syndacalist. And I'm sure there's a lot of other far left people down voting you. I'm not sucking the Democrats off. And acting like both sides are to blame isn't helpful.
The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I'm sure they're aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.
The NRA hasn't been doing anything but fundraising for the GOP for quite some time.
There's not much reason to doubt such a thing - it would be one thing if there was a clear pattern of this institution rejecting such based on the current president but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm not sure how you interpreted my response as a criticism that you don't care about your child, though I do understand how such would make a person defensive. To be clear, I don't believe you understand my frustration.
I'm somewhere around left-libertarian, not that it matters. I find much common ground with an-com and an-syn and generally find these labels to be somewhat meaningless distinctions when considering the sheer overlap of beliefs and values.
Intentionally withholding responsibility from one of the sides present in the equation, one which continues to ignore these inputs in favor of their own wedge-issue positions, is not just not helpful but is actively harmful.
Or do you truly believe there's absolutely nothing blue team could or should be doing here to use such findings in addressing the root issues of the most sensationalized facet of firearm violence which quite likely overlap with the rest of firearm violence?
Their complete lack of action in line with the findings of such research combined with continued action in favor of their dear bans would disagree.
This will be probably be my last response.
Near the same time the article you linked was published, the Justice department started moving on, quite possibly, the very research they funded and that was discussed in the article.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1004088968/states-get-a-blueprint-for-red-flag-gun-removal-laws-from-the-justice-department
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/
Red flag laws and community based violence intervention. Those are the two things the researchers suggested, no?
Anyway, I think you made up your mind ages ago and there's nothing me or anyone else can say that will change it.
Take care.
Are they? As you've shared them, they seem to entirely miss the point. Let's go through these links.
In the first one, of the things The Justice Department will do, only one is even tangentially tied to those findings - it's the publishing of a model for red-flag legislation for states. This seems to continue to ignore the highlight of the other findings in that in many cases those red flag laws already exist and aren't sufficiently-well understood or acted on. In other words, it doesn't actually address the deficiency.
Neither of the other two items are related - they're just more blue-team ban bullshit.
Of their investing in items, the closest match is their call-out "A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities." - a thing that doesn't actually align with the original findings at all. It might, at least, help with some of the often-argued socioeconomic pressures toward violence - in clicking through to another link, there are some details which reinforce this.
So - a close miss and a hopeful addressing of one underlying issue toward violence overall.
In your NPR link, they expound on the first link's mention of a model for red-flag legislation - that it's effectively an amalgamation of the two common strategies. Interestingly, they highlight but otherwise do nothing for the already-known issues - "It also said law enforcement needs training on these laws, "including on issues, for example, like filing a petition and executing an ERPO, implicit bias, de-escalation techniques, and crisis intervention."" They also leave entirely unaddressed long-lived criticisms of such measures - "Critics of the laws, however, say that the rules are too arbitrary and can be weaponized against gun owners during personal disputes. Also at issue are instances of police approaching a person who is known to be armed and is perceived to be dangerous. "
That said, how many of the original findings are left mostly to entirely unaddressed?
How many of these are, say, addressed by any form of legislative effort?
We both know that answer.
Arguably, either party could... actually address the root issues highlighted by that study and it would change my mind regarding the utter lack of blue team focus on those issues.
It would have to actually happen, though, and... well... history seems an able instructor.