Effort continues administration’s work to prevent mass shootings and homicides that primarily affect Black and Latino communities
The Biden administration has announced the nation’s first federal Office of Gun Violence Prevention. In a statement released Thursday, the White House said the office will be overseen by Kamala Harris’s office, directed by Stefanie Feldman, a longtime Biden gun policy adviser, and deputy-directed by Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox, who have led national prevention efforts through the Community Justice Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety respectively.
The creation of this office is a continuation of the administration’s work on preventing high-profile mass shootings and local homicides that primarily affect lower-income Black and Latino communities.
“In the absence of that sorely-needed action, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention along with the rest of my Administration will continue to do everything it can to combat the epidemic of gun violence that is tearing our families, our communities, and our country apart,” Biden said in the announcement.
Yeah, that’ll help her credibility. Give her a task with accountability but no authority to actually change anything.
Very good observation.
Whenever I see kamala harris anything I want to 🤮
She’s a textbook token. Black and female. They needed a black female to fill the role and she was there. That’s all.
It’s disgusting to watch.
yeah i wish it was an old white man they always have the best policies
Definitely not the least bit racist to dismiss someone with a proven legal career as a token.
Now, if you want to say her legal career is a liability and not the strength the boomer liberals think it is, say that instead.
You should look into her legal career, it’s not pretty. Also, she got less than 1% of the democrats support, and dropped out before the first debate. Pretty much nobody wanted her but now she’s VP. She has a pretty shady past when it comes to how she got into some of her positions. - I mean you could say any of this instead.
It’s the career part that makes me dislike her
Same. Her stated policies after moving to representative office however are just standard liberal positions, addressing symptoms and never, ever, threatening the status quo.
Which is better than the possible alternative, but not enough to win against a Republican populist, given the proven sexism and racism of at least a strong minority of the American electorate.
While I’m not much of a fan of the word token, it makes a certain amount of sense to apply in her position.
She isn’t a token because of her own strengths, weaknesses, or job performance. She is a token because Biden decided that the two most important qualifications for the job were Black and Woman, any other quality was less important to him than those two.
I don’t think race or sex significantly impacts the policy decisions of good leaders.
You don’t think people who have experienced life from a completely different perspective have a different perspective of the way policy can have different impacts on various groups of people?
Take a minute to really think deeply about that. In America, do white and black people have the same approach to interactions with police officers? In America, do women walking home alone from work at night have the same concerns for safety as men?
To make it really simple, do people in wheelchairs have the same experience getting on a city bus as people not in wheelchairs?
You don’t think that differences in experience inform the way people approach problems and solutions? Would an engineer have the same approach to generating electric as a nuclear scientist?
Would an urban mayor approach city planning the same way a rural mayor would? How would their approaches differ, and why? Would the experiences and needs of each community be different? Who would the mayors seek as subject matter experts in the case of urban planning, and of rural? What would inform their choices about who to seek out as experts?
If any of the above are true, then why wouldn’t the race or sex of a leader make a difference in policy development?
This is basically how I try to explain to people when they say there’s no such thing as white privelige. They usually don’t think about the simple interactions such as getting pulled over and stuff. They just always think of it as they never got ahead in anything just for being white and it’s way more complex than that.
The wheelchair on a bus problem is a fairly clear example of where perspective and experience matters. It’s also a thing that you don’t really think about unless you’ve had lived or shared experience.
The same can be said about designing a doorway. How wide should the doorway be? Some might cite code for 32", but not know why the code requires that width, while others might say some number less than that based on their own perception of the doorway problem.
Likely, the only people who will answer “At least 32 inches to accommodate wheelchairs access” are people who have lived or shared experience with wheelchair accommodations, or have some expertise that would make them a subject matter expert in ADA compliance.
And if things are this muddy for the width of a doorway, imagine how complex it gets for things like gun violence prevention.
deleted by creator
Really, because there seems to be a very clear racial bias I’ve noticed
Do you mean a clear racial bias in getting elected? Or do you mean that having the wrong skin color or genitals somehow makes you more or less capable of making good decisions?
Harris is multiracial to the point where the easiest thing to call her is “American”. She’s got ancestors from all over the place.
"In the absence of that sorely-needed action, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention along with the rest of my Administration will continue to do everything it can…”
Isn’t that basically admitting that this new department can’t do anything and just posturing?
Or am I missing something?
Edit: In retrospect, the biggest value this department might have is having it be under Republican leadership down the line. An entire department explicitly against gun violence may cause some in-fighting about reasonable measures… as opposed to the current status quo.
That is of course assuming the entire department doesn’t just get tossed and establishes itself as having some teeth.
You’re not missing anything. This is a politically stupid move.
It could be seen as throwing her under the bus. There isn’t anything she can do, and the Republicans will seize on any ineffective measures she tries to enact.
I don’t know what the end game here is except to be trying something vs the current nothing, but this is a no win proposition.
It really is kinda majestically dumb, and it will certainly have zero real impact, simply because of the Tribunal of Six. All it will do is make Harris even more unelectable as a successor candidate for president.
Good. She’s a guaranteed loss.
I agree. I honestly detested her as the VP pick. She was very, very far down my list when she was still a primary candidate. Biden picked her because she’s a lady, and she’s not white. Her track record as CA AG is… not good. That’s the primary reason I strongly dislike her.
You’re missing that her track record as CA AG was good if you’re a Reagan era neoliberal that thinks potheads deserve 10-20.
What’s that? That’s who still controls the DNC?
You’re right, and I hate that.
Should have put Hunter in charge, then have him refuse to answer republican questions on his gun charges claiming executive privilege.
I mean, they COULD process stuff like threats, reports, people on watchlists who own guns, etc. to try and prevent the violence.
Not that they likely will but I mean, there is at least something they COULD do.
I mean, those are good ideas… but isn’t that already arguably covered by the FBI?
Yeah but that doesn’t mean they do it very well. Been plenty of mass shooting from people on a watchlist who legally purchased guns so like, definitely possible to make a department to try and help with that
ATF
It’s classic political posturing which is unlikely to result in any real changes. But with the 2024 election coming up, Biden is looking to shore up support from Black and Latino voters. Support among those demographics has been softening and they were instrumental in his win in 2020. While gun violence isn’t just a Black or Latino issue, it has historically polled as more important among those groups; so, some sort of token support for it, along with raising Kamala Harris’s profile, could be seen as having a net positive effect.
As for any sort of real impact, I’d be surprised if it did anything more than put out reports and news. The single most effective change would be to either move handguns under Title II of the National Firearms Act (which was part of it’s original plan) or ban civilian ownership outright. However, the decisions in DC v. Heller and MacDonald V. City of Chicago basically mean that the latter option is off the table. The former option may be more viable, though that could also put the entirety of the National Firearms Act squarely in the cross-hairs of the Supreme Court, which may be a very bad plan right now. Also, any such change to Title II would likely require Congressional action, and the probability of that is probably somewhere between “No” and “Hell No”.
Ultimately, I’d expect the new office to be long on grandstanding and short on action. But, if it ends up driving more minority turnout for the 2024 election, it will have accomplished it’s unstated goal. After that, it’ll lurch along until it gets defunded and/or killed outright the next time a Republican is elected President. And ya, while many of the folks here may hate that idea, it’s likely that will happen again and probably sooner than we all think. Regan won in a landslide less than a decade after Nixon left office in disgrace. And Biden’s win in 2020 was on razor thin margins. The US is pretty close to evenly divided politically, it only takes a small shift for either party to win.
No, this is the classic ‘put the VP on an impossible task so you can say you are doing something now and can take the fall later for failing’
Isn’t she already the vice president? Isn’t that supposed to be role enough to take up all her time?
The VP is just a spare. Very little in the way of official duties when compared to the President.
The headline is misleading. The person taking the new office is Stefanie Feldman. I guess she will report to Harris.
This is part of her role as vice president
It’s a new office, which she’ll be heading. It’s not a common ‘voice presidential role’
This is basically little more than a committee, they can’t just create a new branch of government by fiat. It’s normal for vice presidents to head “task forces” or committees when the administration wants to focus attention on a given issue.
Cf. Pence’s role in the COVID task force and Space Council and Biden’s role on the middle class task force during the Obama administration.
When vice presidents aren’t breaking tie votes in the Senate, this kind of stuff is basically all they have to do anyway. What is it you think the VP is supposed to be spending their time doing?
deleted by creator
I’m not sure about the wisdom in putting a glorified cop in this position.
So the GOP is pouring water into their sinking raft over abortion and Biden decided “oh shit, I need to find a way to ruin my chances and even the playing field.” Got it.
Apparently no one even bothers looking up Harris’s DA record. She’s literally done this before in CA when she was DA to much success so this isn’t a surprise
She’s actually not a bad person
Nobody complaining will bother to look it up, they have their talking points and they heard the name Harris.
I mean hey, she was very vocal about protecting LGBT rights when she was DA as well. I don’t get the hate. Do people hate that she actually cared?
Her records open, it’s not shrowded in mystery
I think a lot of people hate her record as da in California for the whole truancy bullshit
She actually did an incredible job with it in CA. I would say it’s her biggest achievement while in office there because the reduction in gun violence was huge. Obviously not all entirely due to her, there were other factors helping the outcome, but her efforts definitely assisted, including her pushback against various state departments connected to police that were trying to prevent such restrictions.
Clearly expected after her service as Border Czar
If there’s someone who knows gun violence it’s a pig
Are prosecutors pigs, or just cops?
Harris has a strong track record of being a very evil DA, especially in terms of her impact on black people.
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders (DUN DUN)
Prosecutors are the ones who let cops get away with it. They’re complicit at best.
