• Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
    33·
    2 年前

    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.

    Ah, I see - you argue that a department is Biden’s for nothing more than his being President at the time.

    And since you’re being rude, for ages was clearly bullshit too. You linked an article talking about research that was conceived in 2019.

    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.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
        44·
        2 年前

        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.

        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 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 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 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.

        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?

        The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I’m sure they’re aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.

        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.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
            41·
            2 年前

            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.

            Red flag laws and community based violence intervention. Those are the two things the researchers suggested, no?

            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.

            Anyway, I think you made up your mind ages ago and there’s nothing me or anyone else can say that will change it.

            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.