#everytown for gun safety

[fuckyeahlegionm]

My Dead Friend Zoe wins Narrative Spotlight Audience Award at SXSW 2024!!!

[eugenesisland]

A stage full of morons, cheats and liars

Not a single useful human being in the bunch.

[antidrumpfs]

Cartoon by Walt Handelsman

Cartoon By Dave Whamond

[antidrumpfs]

The GOP is complicit

[lasseling]

Biden Heckled during Slurring Anti-Gun Speech, Repeats Same Word 15 Times

Hecklers managed to derail Democrat President Joe Biden’s already slurred anti-gun speech. Speaking at the Everytown for Gun Safety Action

[elfwreck]

Hello!

I'm not sure if this is a bit odd to ask, but I saw your post about living in rural arkansas as a teen- and the note at the end about gun rights, and how rifles are different than handguns in that legislation and all-

do you have any sources you could link so I can look into that more? I live in rural Kentucky so hunting is very ingrained into just how me and my family and our neighbors live. (also a poor county- I didn't actually know other cities had kids pay for their lunch because I was so used to everyone in my county getting a free lunch- it seems like such a basic thing).

I've never heard anyone mention not banning hunting rifles when they talk about banning guns-

The gun bans being asked for are assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. Rapid-fire guns intended for military use against multiple human targets - not hunting rifles at all, and not the kinds of pistols that are good for self-defense. (...Not that pistols are good for self-defense in general. Shotguns are good for self-defense. Nobody's trying to ban shotguns.)

The NRA is invested in convincing hunting-rifle owners and pistol owners that the various proposed weapons bans are aimed at them, and not at the tiny number of people who want the ability to shoot up a whole bar or classroom in under a minute.

The NRA has also fought hard against any kind of gun safety requirements.

Bill from last year to ban/restrict assault rifles:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/25/text

The gun safety bill Biden recently signed:

Doesn't ban any weapons. Puts restrictions on who can get weapons - people convicted of most types of domestic partner violence will not be allowed to buy guns. It makes it harder for people under 21 to buy guns. It closes some loopholes about selling guns, so sellers will need to be registered and licensed. Sets up new funding for gun crisis intervention.

Doesn't do anything to restrict hunting, other than possibly adding to the bureaucracy for people under 21 getting new guns.

Most people in urban areas are oblivious to hunting as a Real Thing that People Actually Do For Good Reasons, rather than a kind of cruel sporting event. They are vaguely aware that hunting rifles are not assault rifles, are not semi-automatics, but only as an abstract concept. Might or might not be able to tell a hunting rifle apart from a semi-automatic if they saw them. (I am not sure I could; I am very much not a gun person.) (I have shot one gun, once in my life. It was loud and hurt my hand and I had no interest in doing it again.)

I don't know how much I think we need to ban or restrict certain weapons. I am absolutely certain we need to keep certain weapons out of the hands of certain people, because the current system of "I guess 10-year-olds should all get training on what to do if some teacher's ex-boyfriend decides to shoot up the school" is ridiculous.

Given how hard it is to identify the "certain people" who should damn well NOT have access to automatic weapons, I'm okay with "it gets harder for anyone to get them," because I don't see how heavy assault rifles are a "but I neeeeed it this weekend!" kind of thing. (Not sure I see that hunting rifles are a "need it now" kind of thing, either; seems like those are a hefty enough purchase that the buyer should be doing some planning in advance. So filing for it like you would for car registration - another expensive piece of tech that kills people if you use it wrong - shouldn't be too big a burden.)

The idiots who include hunting rifles in their talk about banning guns - I won't say there aren't any; all sorts of politics gets plenty of idiots - have no idea how those guns actually get used. And the people writing actual policies and trying to get the laws changed are not those idiots.

The "ban guns" movement has two main parts:

Remove general access to guns that can kill a dozen people in under a minute, and

Remove gun access from specific people who have a history of getting angry and violent, especially those who have a history of shooting other people when they're angry and violent.

Side note: Some of us want that second point to include cops. That faction is getting nowhere.

None of it is trying to remove access to hunting rifles or reduce the amount of hunting in places that need it. (Basically, all of the South; I am near San Francisco and nobody anywhere near me "needs" to hunt; I don't care what they do with hunting rights in the greater SF Bay Area).

The focus is on preventing gun violence, not preventing gun use. And that means restricting access to guns that have no purpose other than anti-human violence, and restricting access to all guns from people who are likely to use them as weapons instead of tools.

[petewentzisblack1312]

something people arent really mentioning about the we didnt start the fire cover is that as part of it fall out boy are giving away a trip and vip backstage tickets to their boston show, and to enter you have to sign a petition asking for support of the lgbt community or donate to one of three organisations, including the bands charity fund, the human rights campaign and everytown for gun safety. so i dont think its that bad.

enter here

[action]

Donate now to Everytown to keep kids safe from guns

Source

[joe-england]

- If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting me on Patreon! -

Part 1

Part 3

Bonus Stage

This turned out to be surprisingly popular on Twitter!  So far it hasn't attracted many new patrons, but it's still very nice to be seen.  I hope everyone here is enjoying it too, though it's a passion project stealing time away from my original work!  But like I said, it's good practice for Witch Warp.

Footnotes:  Anne’s feet.  Maybe it’s taboo, but it’s my AU, so I figured I’d have my druthers regarding Anne’s famous footwear (specifically, that she's canonically disheveled and always missing a shoe).  Her new boots are based on a design by a storyboard artist.  Mr. Applegate says he drew them on a lark, but I liked ‘em.

Speaking of body parts, the conditions which the Calamity Trio receive here are based on a fan theory which became popular prior to the show’s completion.  In my version, each wound flowers from a previous trauma - Anne’s clobbered arm, Sasha’s scar, and Marcy’s spinal injury.

Anyway, thanks for being patient while I humor my muse.  I'll get back to my own shared universe soon!

(Part 2 of 3)

Tab for a Cause

Everytown for Gun Safety

Top-Rated Charities for Ukraine

The Trevor Project

National Abortion Funds

RAICES

- Joe

[cookingwithroxy]

Right now, there is an anti-gun organization called 'Everytown for Gun Safety'.

Some people have called it a conspiracy theory to claim that it's former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's personal attack program to destroy gun ownership.

But he founded it, is the primary funder of it, and manages it.

When a person directly backs political activism, it can be stated that they have a personal interest in that activism. It's the whole reason WHY campaign contributions are so heavily watched in politics, BECAUSE that money is literally being used to buy influence.

If a major source of money comes from one person, you will want to do what makes that person happy, in order to make sure that money continues to come in.

This goes far past Bloomberg, of course. Many people buy influence in this way. Charitable funding becomes a legal loophole where you can give money to support your personal agendas and sometimes even get to write that money off on your taxes, escaping having to pay tax on the very money you use to influence social issues and buy political influence.

This WAS A known thing. Why is this treated as so unbelievable now?

[antidrumpfs]

Cartoon by Bill Bramhall

[thestylesindependent]

For Harry’s 29th Birthday, we’re raising money to support Everytown for Gun Safety.  Our hearts have been heavy with the recent and ongoing mass shootings in the United States, leading us to supporting evidence-based gun policy to make everyone in every town safe from gun violence. 

Please consider contributing.  Even $5 moves us closer to our goal of $1500 USD.  

Donate here. 

[antidrumpfs]

[kalashni-cola]

Ain't happening Joe

[ridenwithbiden]

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a Texas man under a domestic violence restraining order has a Second Amendment right to own guns. We’re in this hell because the court decided in June 2022 that modern gun laws are unconstitutional unless there’s a historical basis for them—meaning, would a bunch of 18th-century white guys agree with it or not?

United States v. Rahimi is one of the biggest cases of this Supreme Court term and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito sounded very concerned that courts are stripping away a fundamental right from men who judges agree are abusive, while the other justices sounded very skeptical of the argument. But since it’s a blockbuster case, we likely won’t get a decision until late June 2024, which is when the court typically rules on the biggest appeals—regardless of when they were first argued. So we have a good seven months to worry about it.

Domestic violence groups have made the stakes crystal clear with their amicus briefs, noting that removing guns from domestic abusers saves lives. And according to gun safety group Everytown, 70 women are shot and killed every month by current or former partners. In her opening comments, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar—the person tasked with defending the law—made the same point. Prelogar said that the court recognized in a 2014 case that “all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” Prelogar said the U.S. does have a long tradition of disarming people who are considered a danger to society. She also noted that domestic violence wasn’t considered a problem at the time of the founding, but that shouldn’t prevent governments from passing laws against it now. After all, modern laws ban guns in schools even though there isn’t a historical analog.

The three liberal justices all seemed like they’d vote to uphold the law and even Justices John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorusch sounded like they disagreed with the arguments that Rahimi’s federal public defender was making.

But Justice Thomas and Alito were concerned that it’s too easy for state courts to take guns away from people accused of domestic violence but not convicted of a crime. “If this were a criminal proceeding, then you would have a determination of what you’re talking about—someone would be convicted of a crime, a felony assault or something,” Thomas said. “But here you have something that’s anticipatory or predictive, where a civil court is making the determination.” Justice Alito then posed a hypothetical showing he’s much more worried about people’s right to possess a gun than the dangers that gun could pose to others. “If the person [under the restraining order] thinks that he or she is in danger and wants to have a firearm, is that person’s only recourse to possess the firearm and take their chances if they get prosecuted?” Alito asked.

It’s horrifying to think about these arguments coming from the same Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade—and Alito wrote that opinion himself. Homicide is the number one cause of death for pregnant people. Domestic violence hotlines have seen a spike in calls since the fall of Roe. We’ve seen stories in the last year of men shooting their partners because they did or didn’t get abortions.

If the Supreme Court eventually rules against Rahimi and strikes down the appeals court decision, it will be a win—but that doesn’t mean the court is suddenly reasonable, it just means their 2022 Bruen decision was so nuts that they have to put guardrails on it. It’s still absurd that this case even made it to the court in the first place.

[eugenesisland]

"Everytown’s data is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. It is so chock-full of errors that using it to draw any conclusion would become a study in futility. It is pure GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out."