https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/ n the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as "proof" that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia's National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline. "Exhibit A" is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia. There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates. A Trend in Falling Rates As noted by legal scholar Michael Tonry:
There is now general agreement, at least for developed English-speaking countries and western Europe, that homicide patterns have moved in parallel since the 1950s. The precise timing of the declines has varied, but the common pattern is apparent. Homicide rates increased substantially from various dates in the 1960s, peaked in the early 1990s or slightly later, and have since fallen substantially.
This was certainly the case in the United States. US homicides hit a 51-year low in 2014, falling to a level not seen since 1963. This followed the general trend: peaking in the early 1990s and then going into steep decline. And yet, we can't point to any new national measure that we can then claim caused the decline. In fact, the data suggests gun ownership increased significantly during this period. Australia followed the same pattern, although national homicide data collection was spotty before the early 1990s: Source: Standardized homicide rates per 100,000 population, four English-speaking countries, various years to 2012. See "Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World" by Michael Tonry. Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn't a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia's homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably. This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much. As data analyst Leah Libresco wrote in 2017 in The Washington Post:
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths...
This doesn't stop many reporters for mainstream outlets from claiming that any decline in homicides can with certainty be attributed to whatever the most recent gun control restrictions were. But it rarely works in the opposite direction. For example, during the 1990s, many American states liberalized gun laws considerably, allowing more concealed carry provisions and lessening controls in general. Needless to say, The New York Times doesn't point to this and say "American homicide rates decreased in response to loosening of state gun laws." Of course, I'm not saying that these changes in gun laws by themselves indisputably "prove" that more concealed carry laws reduce homicides. But if I subscribed to the same standards of rigor as most mainstream journalists, I'd likely have no scruples about doing this in spite of what other factors ought to be considered. Faced with a lack of evidence that the 1996 law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia's then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia's homicide rates are lower than the US's. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia's homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-date modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states—some of which have very lax gun laws—have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia's.) Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors. Those who work in public policy and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn't exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides. Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay "Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism," identified four factors he thought most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: "To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher." Monkonnen's conclusions on this matter don't necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving differences in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there needs to be a clear "before and after difference" in the jurisdiction in which they are adopted. Comparisons with other countries miss the point. Suicide Rates Are Back at Pre-1996 Levels Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven't actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia's gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is a suicide prevention measure. For example, it's not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming "suicide figures plummeted" in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe. Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There's little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under nine per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we're still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline. Overall, this is just the level of discourse we should expect from the media and policymakers on this matter. Even the flimsiest correlation to the passage of a gun control law is assumed to have been the primary factor behind a decline in homicides. Meanwhile, any easing of gun laws that coincides with declining homicides (as happened in the US) is to be ignored. In both cases, the situation is more complicated than reporters suggest. But don't expect this to be a restraining factor on the drive for new gun laws in New Zealand. In Australia, the 1996 gun control measure was passed only 12 days after the massacre used to justify the new legislation. New Zealand politicians look like they're trying to take an even more cavalier attitude toward deliberation and debate. Meanwhile, in Norway, where Anders Brevik murdered 77 people in 2011—67 of them with semi-automatic firearms—the national legislature didn't pass significant changes to gun control regulations until 2018.
Judge Leigh Cheng didn’t seem to mind that Raquan Wilson, 19, already had four open cases for packing loaded pistols and for armed robbery — including allegedly pointing a gun at one victim and threatening to shoot him in the head — when he came before him on the latest case Tuesday.
重新解读二修就好了 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“ 枪人们不要想当然
Judge Leigh Cheng didn’t seem to mind that Raquan Wilson, 19, already had four open cases for packing loaded pistols and for armed robbery — including allegedly pointing a gun at one victim and threatening to shoot him in the head — when he came before him on the latest case Tuesday. jyac 发表于 2021-04-07 15:21
回复 1楼lraqis的帖子 具体点的细节出来了 Biden to announce executive action on ghost guns, red flag laws BY ALEX GANGITANO AND BRETT SAMUELS - 04/07/21 08:00 PM EDT 0 President Biden will announce on Thursday six executive actions geared towards preventing all forms of gun violence, including mass shootings, community violence, domestic violence and suicide. The Department of Justice (DOJ) will issue a series of proposed rules aimed at restricting the proliferation of so-called ghost guns, encouraging states to adopt red flag laws and tightening loopholes around certain modified pistols. The department is also expected to issue a comprehensive report on firearm trafficking for the first time since 2000, and Biden will make official his intent to nominate David Chipman, a gun control advocate, to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. None of the actions will single-handedly reclassify firearms or restrict access to guns. But a senior administration official made clear the president viewed the announcement as a first step in tackling the issue of gun violence in the wake of mass shootings in Atlanta and Boulder, Colo. “The president will not wait for Congress to act before the administration takes our own steps,” the official said in a call with reporters. The DOJ within 30 days will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of ghost guns. Ghost guns are untraceable when they turn up at crime scenes because they don’t have serial numbers. The senior administration officials said they are a growing problem and are made through kits containing nearly all components of a gun, with assembly directions. The officials wouldn’t specify if this rule would classify ghost guns as firearms. A group of Democratic senators previously urged Biden to grant the ATF with greater authority to regulate ghost guns. Within 60 days, the DOJ will publish model red flag legislation for states. Red flag laws would allow police or family members to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from people in crisis. “As the president urges Congress to pass legislation that will create an appropriate, national red flag law and also pass legislation that incentivizes states to adopt red flag laws, the Justice Department’s published model legislation will make it easier for states that want to adopt red flag laws to do so,” the official said. Red flag laws previously gained momentum after a spate of mass shootings in 2019 when some Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), proposed legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement to identify potentially dangerous individuals and get a judge’s order to confiscate their guns. Then-President Trumpinitially supported the idea before backing away, and no such legislation was ever passed. The DOJ, also within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear that when a stabilizing device effectively turns a pistol into a short barreled rifle, that firearm is subject to the requirement of the National Firearms Act. The alleged shooter in Boulder used a pistol with an arm brace, which makes a firearm more stable and accurate. Biden will also take action towards evidence-based community violence intervention programs that can be used as tools “without turning to incarceration,” according to the officials. Five federal agencies will be making changes to 26 different programs to support community violence intervention programs. The executive actions come weeks after the shootings in Georgia and Colorado, the first high profile mass shootings of the Biden administration. The president had vowed to take action in his first 100 days to tackle gun violence after years of inaction by Congress, and it remains unclear whether any gun reforms will pass the narrowly divided Senate. Momentum has repeatedly hit a wall in Congress, even as mass shootings become commonplace in the United States. Congress failed to pass stronger gun laws after the Sandy Hook shooting, when Biden was vice president, and initial optimism fell by the wayside following back-to-back massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, in 2019. Two gun violence prevention bills passed the House last month and both face an uphill battle in the Senate. One would strengthen background checks and the other would close the so-called Charleston loophole by extending the time federal investigators have to conduct background checks. “The administration is going to move forward to deliver progress via executive action when we have the authority to do so,” the official said. The officials also stressed that Biden has worked with gun violence prevention advocacy groups for years, dating back to his time in the Senate. Chipman is a senior policy adviser at the group Giffords. “He has been in a long conversation with many of these groups,” the official said, adding that Domestic Policy Council Director Susan Rice and Biden adviser Cedric Richmond have been leading these conversations. Everytown for Gun Safety said in a statement that these actions “begin to make good on President Biden’s promise to be the strongest gun safety president in history.” “[W]e are glad to hear the administration’s commitment that today’s actions are just the beginning, and look forward to continuing to work closely with them to end gun violence in this country,” president John Feinblatt said in a statement on Wednesday. Moms Demand Action Founder Shannon Watts also called these actions “a huge victory” and applauded Biden in a statement.
🔥 最新回帖
seriously罪犯手里有的是炸药,守法居民没法自卫,所以应该开放C4, 人手一箱,应该够安全吧?
美国市场上大弹夹的有连射功能的步枪都禁止了吗? 大弹夹到底有什么作用?是家防还是打猎需要?Mass Shooting时不管是杀伤力还是精度, 手枪都相差很远。 霰弹枪的射程/穿透性更是渣。
严格控枪, 对于美国老百姓有百利无一害。说买枪为了保护自己, 家防手枪和霰弹枪足以。
麻烦你看看内容,buyback之后枪支是全部销毁的,这是buyback计划的一部分,虽然只减少了20%的枪支,但是禁止了automatic和semi automatic的出售,加强了新枪支的出售的审查,所有枪支都有网上登记,效果很明显,跟枪支有关的自杀率和杀人案都大幅度下降,最重要的是澳大利亚枪支管制之前18年间发生过13次mass shooting, 管制后22年只发生过一次。
Faced with a lack of evidence that the 1996 law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia's then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia's homicide rates are lower than the US's. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia's homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-date modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states—some of which have very lax gun laws—have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia's.) Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors. Those who work in public policy and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn't exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides. Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay "Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism," identified four factors he thought most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: "To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher." Monkonnen's conclusions on this matter don't necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving differences in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there needs to be a clear "before and after difference" in the jurisdiction in which they are adopted. Comparisons with other countries miss the point. Suicide Rates Are Back at Pre-1996 Levels Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven't actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia's gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is a suicide prevention measure. For example, it's not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming "suicide figures plummeted" in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe. Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There's little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under nine per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we're still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline. Overall, this is just the level of discourse we should expect from the media and policymakers on this matter. Even the flimsiest correlation to the passage of a gun control law is assumed to have been the primary factor behind a decline in homicides. Meanwhile, any easing of gun laws that coincides with declining homicides (as happened in the US) is to be ignored. In both cases, the situation is more complicated than reporters suggest. But don't expect this to be a restraining factor on the drive for new gun laws in New Zealand. In Australia, the 1996 gun control measure was passed only 12 days after the massacre used to justify the new legislation. New Zealand politicians look like they're trying to take an even more cavalier attitude toward deliberation and debate. Meanwhile, in Norway, where Anders Brevik murdered 77 people in 2011—67 of them with semi-automatic firearms—the national legislature didn't pass significant changes to gun control regulations until 2018.
都不用打开链接看,你不觉得这个自相矛盾么?
标题里说没收”confiscated“,链接明明说的是赎买”buyback“
VOX本来就是左派媒体,但是文章里也说了,政府要禁的枪是按公平市价回购的(事实上很多时候是枪主当年买进价格的2,3,4倍),而且回购据估计也只是收回了市面上20%的枪。
文章还提到这是2011年的事情,说回购应该和治安好转有关系,但是不能说治安好转时因为限枪。
当时澳大利亚经济不错出口资源挺滋润,大家日子都过得去,又没有美国这样的AA历史遗留问题。
🛋️ 沙发板凳
楼下阴阳怪气的大妈先别着急, 支持的是control不是ban,这俩词儿很难区别么?您要非觉得不让买半自动全自动突突突枪,or必须成年才能买枪,人生就不安全了,那咱就只能尊重您可能因为尚未成年所以欠缺的思维能力和英语水平了呗
真正意义是什么?
有了gun control, 坏人就不会再拿枪突突手无寸铁的良民了
坚决支持!
想得太美好了,但剧情往往是,坏人总有各种办法搞到枪,倒霉的总是好人! 当坏人闯入你家,你觉得五秒钟拿到枪自卫快,还是打911 等二十分钟警察来保护你? 美国三亿条枪,总有几千支不受控制造成Mass shooting , 就像清国几亿把菜刀,总有几千把被拿来伤人。 神经病发作造成大量伤亡和控制枪支是两个概念,买枪的可以被查精神状况,但和枪支管控不是一回事。我赞成严管大火力枪支售卖,但不可以被执法者作为借口来限制好人拥有低杀伤力的防身枪械。 看到Mass shooting 很多都是合法得来的枪,就认为要禁枪最好,殊不知,每天街头巷尾的持枪抢劫,拿枪进屋打劫的,都是非法得来的枪,这些如何禁止,政府对此有过什么措施吗?
哇 有了gun control 之后 有枪的都是坏人吧 好人手无寸铁无法保护自己 遵纪守法的人是好人多还是坏人多?
神经病突然发疯杀人的机会会小一点。以前我家那里一个青年教师突然发疯拿刀追砍室友,一个50多岁的体育老师上去把刀夺了,结果没人被砍死。
实在死太多人了
这下好了,整个美国会像控枪最严的纽约,芝加哥一样安全了。
罪犯会听劝遵守法律,就不是罪犯了。
先了解一下control和ban的区别如何?你管买不了半自动枪or全自动枪叫‘手无寸铁’啊,你是平日在战乱地区生活的啊
坏人搞枪的成本也越来越大,犯罪的成本也会越来越大。至少减少了很多没有能力搞到枪的坏人的枪击犯罪
control不是ban,谁不让你拿枪自卫了,正规渠道拥枪不好么
当然你要非说只有半自动全自动冲锋枪才能自卫
exactly 好多时候打一架或者挥刀相向就能解决的人民内部矛盾就掏出AR来 是不是有毛病?
你第一天下飞机吗,美国有敢说 BAN gun 的吗 ? control 就是想 Ban!
控枪只是一部分,重要的是控枪同时严厉打击犯罪,否则就是政治秀,越控买枪的人越多。美国深蓝大城市控枪最严厉,为什么犯罪率却最高?这些大城市可都是民主党牢牢控制几十年的。
又来偷换概念了,人家说gun control又不是禁枪。你这种合法良民在家里持枪击退歹徒又不会被限制。
但是不通过正规渠道买枪,可以被定罪呀,可以收缴枪支弹药啊,比在他犯了事儿的时候抓起来容易。
Sandy hook那事情之后,我就一直想着,支持不控枪的,可以去小学天天站岗吗?
政府可以一边购买非法枪支,一边发现你有非法枪支会严重处罚。匪徒用枪打劫就是为了钱,如果卖给政府,一把$500。很多非法枪支会离开市场。就看政府肯不肯做了。如果非法枪支少了,每把在黑市是天价,坏人也买不起。
一直不明白为什么美国不能像管车一样管枪。
有枪的每年要给自己的枪做年检,交年费,年检的时候,查犯罪记录和精神病记录。
禁止大弹夹和自动半自动枪械。
就这么点儿事做不到,哎。
民主党比较正直
但是我支持控枪, 说控枪就民不聊生的就是和党在带节奏,也滚粗
我看不下去一些人, 一提到控枪就满地打滚 (主要是共和党), 控一下怎么你了嘛!? 又不是把你的枪都收走, 你悲愤个蛋!
美国是法治社会,建议你先了解一下美国立法的流程,再来试着提出一个有意义的问题。我们可能不是一个途径下的飞机来美国,所以知识结构差距那么大也可以理解
为啥?就好像不花钱买车的要有车的免费载他们?还要回头骂开车的somehow造成酒驾死亡多少人,lol 你们花了钱雇佣的拥枪人叫做警察,你们可以等他们来救,或者和罪犯肉搏。。。
当一个小孩压力太大想不开,是五秒钟拿到枪自杀快,还是花二十分钟去买安眠药,去找楼跳,犹豫割腕痛不痛快?
当一个小孩厌恶老师同学和学校,是五秒钟拿到枪mass shooting快,还是跟同学老师吵一架打一架快?
这世界上没有绝对的好人,只有极端情况下一时冲动的抱憾终身
这就是control的意义所在,你觉得control的是好人,但是正常理解力的人都会认为control的是坏人吧?如果政府只能做到control好人,那control的意义何在啊!
明天公布了又会有人抱怨力度太低,不能象某些人想象的一揽子直接违反二修去禁枪等等
他能做的也就是加强买枪的背景检查了吧,别的也做不了什么。
Judge Leigh Cheng didn’t seem to mind that Raquan Wilson, 19, already had four open cases for packing loaded pistols and for armed robbery — including allegedly pointing a gun at one victim and threatening to shoot him in the head — when he came before him on the latest case Tuesday.
越控越多!! 挺好的,我也支持!!
是吗?坏人有的是办法从黑市上搞到枪好吗?
不要天天被大豆牵着鼻子走,在国际上被人当猴儿耍,然后回来再耍自己粉儿。
到不了高法,地方法庭就歇菜了。
为什么你觉得良民控枪就拿不到枪? 控枪又不是禁枪
我只看到一堆共和党的人拼命想搅浑水,把控枪无限拔高到禁枪来恐吓别人 控个枪,加强背景调查, 你怕个蛋?别有用心?你是不符合背景调查的坏人?
不让买半自动,就只能买老套筒了
拜登是有魄力的,埋头做事不吹牛逼的,克林顿时期启动的10年的Assault Weapon Ban 就是拜登一手推动的,小布什这傻叉在任的时候没有延续Ban,之后Mass Shooting就开始此起彼伏
呵呵,这就是典型的例子
问题不是枪,而是人 ---- 而且这个“人” 不止是罪犯,还包括罪犯之友们 --- 一大群DA /Judge
这要能保护大家也挺好。就怕这群大妈枪法不好,为了保护自己掏出枪一顿乱射,那她周围的人可倒霉了。
这个主意不错
对,这才是源头
选举投票呢?
反控枪派的这种逻辑真恶心。这么多起mass shootings,哪个是“坏人”?全都是合法买到的枪支
具体点的细节出来了
Biden to announce executive action on ghost guns, red flag laws BY ALEX GANGITANO AND BRETT SAMUELS - 04/07/21 08:00 PM EDT 0
President Biden will announce on Thursday six executive actions geared towards preventing all forms of gun violence, including mass shootings, community violence, domestic violence and suicide.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) will issue a series of proposed rules aimed at restricting the proliferation of so-called ghost guns, encouraging states to adopt red flag laws and tightening loopholes around certain modified pistols.
The department is also expected to issue a comprehensive report on firearm trafficking for the first time since 2000, and Biden will make official his intent to nominate David Chipman, a gun control advocate, to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
None of the actions will single-handedly reclassify firearms or restrict access to guns. But a senior administration official made clear the president viewed the announcement as a first step in tackling the issue of gun violence in the wake of mass shootings in Atlanta and Boulder, Colo.
“The president will not wait for Congress to act before the administration takes our own steps,” the official said in a call with reporters.
The DOJ within 30 days will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of ghost guns. Ghost guns are untraceable when they turn up at crime scenes because they don’t have serial numbers.
The senior administration officials said they are a growing problem and are made through kits containing nearly all components of a gun, with assembly directions. The officials wouldn’t specify if this rule would classify ghost guns as firearms. A group of Democratic senators previously urged Biden to grant the ATF with greater authority to regulate ghost guns.
Within 60 days, the DOJ will publish model red flag legislation for states. Red flag laws would allow police or family members to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from people in crisis.
“As the president urges Congress to pass legislation that will create an appropriate, national red flag law and also pass legislation that incentivizes states to adopt red flag laws, the Justice Department’s published model legislation will make it easier for states that want to adopt red flag laws to do so,” the official said.
Red flag laws previously gained momentum after a spate of mass shootings in 2019 when some Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), proposed legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement to identify potentially dangerous individuals and get a judge’s order to confiscate their guns. Then-President Trump initially supported the idea before backing away, and no such legislation was ever passed. The DOJ, also within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear that when a stabilizing device effectively turns a pistol into a short barreled rifle, that firearm is subject to the requirement of the National Firearms Act. The alleged shooter in Boulder used a pistol with an arm brace, which makes a firearm more stable and accurate.
Biden will also take action towards evidence-based community violence intervention programs that can be used as tools “without turning to incarceration,” according to the officials. Five federal agencies will be making changes to 26 different programs to support community violence intervention programs.
The executive actions come weeks after the shootings in Georgia and Colorado, the first high profile mass shootings of the Biden administration. The president had vowed to take action in his first 100 days to tackle gun violence after years of inaction by Congress, and it remains unclear whether any gun reforms will pass the narrowly divided Senate.
Momentum has repeatedly hit a wall in Congress, even as mass shootings become commonplace in the United States. Congress failed to pass stronger gun laws after the Sandy Hook shooting, when Biden was vice president, and initial optimism fell by the wayside following back-to-back massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, in 2019.
Two gun violence prevention bills passed the House last month and both face an uphill battle in the Senate. One would strengthen background checks and the other would close the so-called Charleston loophole by extending the time federal investigators have to conduct background checks.
“The administration is going to move forward to deliver progress via executive action when we have the authority to do so,” the official said.
The officials also stressed that Biden has worked with gun violence prevention advocacy groups for years, dating back to his time in the Senate. Chipman is a senior policy adviser at the group Giffords.
“He has been in a long conversation with many of these groups,” the official said, adding that Domestic Policy Council Director Susan Rice and Biden adviser Cedric Richmond have been leading these conversations.
Everytown for Gun Safety said in a statement that these actions “begin to make good on President Biden’s promise to be the strongest gun safety president in history.”
“[W]e are glad to hear the administration’s commitment that today’s actions are just the beginning, and look forward to continuing to work closely with them to end gun violence in this country,” president John Feinblatt said in a statement on Wednesday.
Moms Demand Action Founder Shannon Watts also called these actions “a huge victory” and applauded Biden in a statement.
以前有人说大选后,五毛和川粉会快速合流。开始还不相信,现在真不得不信。
一句话就是:都见不得美国好。
枪 肯定是有副作用的。时不时的有些零星的个人枪杀事件,这没办法的。这是为了抵抗独裁者更大的伤害(饿死3000万人等)而必需付出的一定的代价。
同样,中国每年车祸死亡26万人,远远比美国的零星枪杀死的人多的多,也没有看见哪个中国人提倡在中国禁止卖车。
Sandy Hook 事件20个小学生的生命被夺走以后还能不流眼泪的不做点事情的政治家良心都坏掉了。
Bush senior did it already in 1989 and the order is still in force.
是阿。 第二修正案才是主谋阿, NRA 就是帮凶, 洗了一大批人的脑子。
车的目的和枪的目的一样吗?车主要目的是运载工具而枪是杀人。
政府才不管呢, 那些犯罪分子都是民主党之友, 民主党对于自己的票仓出去打草谷,当然是眯一只眼闭一只眼了
枪 的目的是 抵抗 杀人。当3000万人饿死的时候,我可以抵抗饿死。当2,3亿儿童被计划生育杀死的时候,我可以抵抗而保护我的子女生命不被杀死。
我觉得有枪能对抗国家机器就不用想了,根本不在一个量级上,警察的武装都已经军队化了。
我觉得在美国住house的前提是有枪,没院墙前门玻璃一敲碎了就进屋,有枪可以对付胆敢闯进来的匪徒,没枪我觉得住着睡不着觉,宁可去住apartment了。
持枪对抗国家机器是拥枪派的有意误读,中文枪人们乐于以讹传讹,也符合海华老将和墙内推墙党鼓吹人民武装颠覆土鳖的意淫需求。二修案维护的是州的独立性,必要的时候州有权武装保护自己。所谓的持枪权也是从这个角度说的,并没有任何暗示持枪权是为了平民们能够武装起来对抗国家机器
被洗脑的挺枪牌每次都这一套。控个机关枪就跟马上要把小左轮都收缴了一样。你为啥不说个人应该也可以拥有核弹呢?
独裁者也是要通过 基层官僚 来执行命令的。计划生育,房子拆迁也是要靠那些基层官僚来执行的。我只要枪对那些基层官僚管用就行了。那些 基层官僚 也要去米其林饭店吃饭,也要有子女去上学,等等。找个空子,干掉几个基层官僚还是问题不大的。所以如果独裁者发疯,那些命令搞的天怒人怨,到基层那些基层官僚那边也是执行不下去的。那就够了。
还不定谁被洗脑呢,我只看事实,加州已经禁了大弹匣,bullet button也禁了,换弹匣还不如手枪了。控枪停止了?没有。只会一步进一步,支持控枪的我,不相信只是这些人的目的是控枪。事实胜于雄辩和欺骗,控枪派敢说出自己的终点吗?那一定是完全无法获得枪支。