Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting

[gredinger]

Three years ago today, a lone gunman took the lives of 14 students and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In seconds, the lives of dozens of families, and the life of an American community, were changed forever.

For three years now, the Parkland families have spent birthdays and holidays without their loved ones. They’ve missed out on the experience of sending their children off to college or seeing them on their first job after high school. Like far too many families, they’ve had to bury pieces of their soul deep within the Earth. Like far too many families — and, indeed, like our nation — they’ve been left to wonder whether things would ever be okay.

These families are not alone. In big cities and small towns. In schools and shopping malls. In churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. In movie theaters and concert halls. On city street corners that will never get a mention on the evening news. All across our nation, parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends have known the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence. And in this season of so much loss, last year’s historic increase in homicides across America, including the gun violence disproportionately devastating Black and Brown individuals in our cities, has added to the number of empty seats at our kitchen tables. Today, as we mourn with the Parkland community, we mourn for all who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

Over these three years, the Parkland families have taught all of us something profound. Time and again, they have showed us how we can turn our grief into purpose – to march, organize, and build a strong, inclusive, and durable movement for change.

The Parkland students and so many other young people across the country who have experienced gun violence are carrying forward the history of the American journey. It is a history written by young people in each generation who challenged prevailing dogma to demand a simple truth: we can do better. And we will.

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/14/statement-by-the-president-three-years-after-the-parkland-shooting/

----

Less than a month in and already aiming to take gun violence. Nice.

[1714603240]

1714603240

[Vod]

Less than a month in and already aiming to take gun violence. Nice.

Kind of too late, but he has the best chance of doing it in recent history!  I wonder if they think all the guns will go poof when the bill is signed? 

[squatz1]

Less than a month in and already aiming to take gun violence. Nice.

Kind of too late, but he has the best chance of doing it in recent history!  I wonder if they think all the guns will go poof when the bill is signed? 

‘Aiming to take on gun violence’ Interesting choice of words there.

I’ve always been amazed by people. Obama had the ability to influence gun policy and healthcare and pretty much every other progressive dream during his 1st term in office when Dems had the trifecta.

Dems have the trifecta again (by a much slimmer margin, but still a trifecta none the less) and I doubt they’ll do anything to satisfy progressives with it. Joe Biden could probably pass a pretty moderate gun violence bill TODAY, but it wont happen.

[franky1]

its not about removing all guns.
its about removing all high capacity weapons.
EG the automatic rifles, drum magazines
its also about actually having regulation.. (well regulated militia)

no one needs a machine gun for hunting or self defence.
if you think you need to rattle off a drum of 50-100 bullets in quick succession so fast that you dont even have time to think or aim or even reload. then what you are seeking is not defence but offence

its not about removing all guns its about removing the access to idiots having guns.
you know.. the 17yo idiots that think its cool to walk down a mainstreet with a semi auto gun and see how many people will react, just to get some youtube fame and then say 'it coz constitution'

the constitution says 'a well regulated militia'. it does not say 'random idiots wield a gun'
it says bare arms it does not say fully automatic rifle with a drum magazine

..
to actually get results all they have to do is legally define handguns with a 10round clip as 'arms' and semi/fully auto rifles as 'firearms' or another term.
thus then forming rifles into a separate category not mentioned in the constitution
or more jokingly.. legally define 'bear arms' as freedom to wear a costume sleeve that mimics a bears paws and arm. (freedom to furry sleeve)

emphasis the constitution does say "a well regulated".. something most idiots ignore

[ammodotcom]

no one needs a machine gun for hunting or self defence.

And yet the only organization in America that is legally allowed to kill American citizens has machine guns.

[Tzupy]

The illegitimate (because of the stolen election) Harris - Biden regime is trying to disarm the people.
So when later increasingly oppressive laws will be passed, the people won't be able to defend themselves against the tyranny.

[franky1]

no one needs a machine gun for hunting or self defence.

And yet the only organization in America that is legally allowed to kill American citizens has machine guns.

what you dont realise is the NRA sell to both the cops and citizens
they sell a handgun in the 1950's to cops. then advertise citizens need hand guns too in the 60's
they advertise because citizens have handguns. cops need shotguns in the 70's
they then advertise citizens need shotguns too in the 80s
they then advertise cops need rifles in the 90's
they then advertise citizens need rifles in 00's
they then advertise cops need fully automatics in 10's
they then advertise citizens need fully automatics in 20's
they then advertise cops need tanks
and so on and so on

yep next move is citizens need armour plated vehicles with projectile weaponry

...
but addressing just your point. yes in law if someone waves a gun around or warns you that they are armed. you then have the right to defend yourself because suddenly there is a potential risk to life.
that defence works both ways. and in of itself a reason why so many deaths occur.. just having a gun

the NRA tries to advertise that citizens should walk around with guns. knowing it will cause issues by suggesting such
if your going to open carry. expect some people to look at you in shock and have the police check you out
the NRA wont come save you when your stopped and questioned. all they care about is getting more gun sales. they will not pay your bail

[Gyfts]

...

The NRA takes an extremist view on guns. Their tweeter feed has a lot of shitty takes...fair point.

But how do you define an assault rifle in regards to a ban? Do you go by bullet velocity, caliber, barrel length?

I don't trust the Biden administration to define an assault weapons ban with too much thinking. It's more like "let's ban scary looking guns".

[Tzupy]

HR127: These Gun Control Bills are NOT About Savings Lives, They're about Money, Power, & Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gd_jRtY-EQ

[franky1]

But how do you define an assault rifle

if its already defined as an ASSAULT rifle. then its not defence by its own existing definition

anyway a 10 clip handgun that needs to be manually 'cocked' per shot. is defence as that half second re-arming the gun is just enough time to decide if the offender has been subdued. rather than a spray 'n' pray mentality

personally id prefer people to use tazers

[Gyfts]

But how do you define an assault rifle

if its already defined as an ASSAULT rifle. then its not defence by its own existing definition

anyway a 10 clip handgun that needs to be manually 'cocked' per shot. is defence as that half second re-arming the gun is just enough time to decide if the offender has been subdued. rather than a spray 'n' pray mentality

personally id prefer people to use tazers

You can "assault" someone defensively I'm sure. Imagine this -- you get punched, then you punch the guy back. You assaulted someone to protect yourself.

So taking semantics aside, how do you deal with shot guns or long rifle guns? Those probably won't be banned by Biden's plan and those tend to be higher velocity type guns. Where's the best place to draw the line.

Spray and pray type mentality is already taken care of because automatic weapons aren't legal anywhere (I think, at least over in the US it's banned).

[Mauser]

But how do you define an assault rifle

if its already defined as an ASSAULT rifle. then its not defence by its own existing definition

anyway a 10 clip handgun that needs to be manually 'cocked' per shot. is defence as that half second re-arming the gun is just enough time to decide if the offender has been subdued. rather than a spray 'n' pray mentality

personally id prefer people to use tazers

In my opinion Tazers would be the best option. There is no need to be using fatal options in so many cases. I am not so familiar with the new type of weapons but for tazers to be the first weapon of choice there needs maybe a longer range version that guarantees the subject is subdued. As for selfdefense it will be hard to get rid of all the handguns, there are just too many.

[Vatimins]

     The only take I have on this is that removing guns or not acting about it at all are both wrong solutions due to tradition, and contradictions on tradition. What truly is needed is to have good regulation. Strict rules and even stricter requirements before letting any person have the right to own a gun. This is to ensure that a person has a valid reason in owning a gun and is mentally stable. If this happens, then surely, both sides( traditional and non traditional) would benefit.