POLL: Results of the Too Hot Panel on Gun VIolence (Please vote)

I voted “no” because there wasn’t a line item vote. It’s all or none (I think that was the intent of a compromise).

I like 1, 2, 6, and 7.

I don’t see how 3, 4, 5, and 8 could be uniform across states.

I am unsure if the 21 age limit would curb much violence when access to guns is not itself limited. We require men to register for the draft at 18. The 26th amendment says 18 to vote. There isn’t a constitutional ability to put an age limit absent adjustments to the 2nd Amendment; thus, the 10th amendment seems to apply to states to decide.

I also voted “no” because 4, 5, and 8 are costly and impossible to uniformity enforce. Each local community will need to raise taxes to pay for an enforce the framework.

Finally, I voted “no” because I would prefer there to be an added requirement under the Federal law to enforce the Constitution for each state to show they have done their due diligence to maintain a well regulated militia. The states need to drive specific training programs, mental health training, etc to show that members of the well regulated militia (all residents of that state) are competent to bear arms.

 

While I have a few reservations I voted yea because I believe this is a good move in the right direction.
1,2,3 all look good to me. I’d prefer the minimum age be 24 but I understand the issues with that. (I’d also prefer the minimum age to vote and be drafted be 24… but oh well.)

4,5
More resource officers won’t hurt but probably won’t deter a nut case looking to shoot up the school. They MIGHT end the threat early if properly trained and prepared… maybe.
One point of entry is something many many schools have already gone to. It’s cost effective and usually fairly easy to implement.

6,7
My biggest concerns. If limited capacity is not defined I fear we end up with 3-5 round maximums. Before anyone laughs or dismisses it, it has already be suggested by different people across the country. 15 found minimum is fine.
A national registry bothers me a little as well. Will it be hacked and weaponized? Will future liberal leaders use for confiscation? (Beto). While I believe it can lead to some good… not sure how it helps end gun violence. Can some one explain the correlation between a national registry and lowering gun violence?

8- no mandatory metal detectors.

 

Very good project. Thanks for doing it.
I voted yes.

On a somewhat related note, though a bit off topic, there have been questions about security around Abe when he was assassinated, but I heard someone this morning make the point there are so few guns in Japan that no one expected an assassination by that means. A knife or sword perhaps, but not a projectile firing weapon.

 

Voted no originally out of gut feeling. As I created my response to each line item I changed my mind.

1. Doesn't do anything but make AR owners feel better about people mislabeling their gun (I own 2).
2. I'm fine with this but unsure of how much of an impact this would have since they are already class 3 weapons laws.
3. I like this but would definitely like a couple more years added on.
4. In theory this is good but we've seen countless times where resource officers didn't do a damn thing.
5. Yes please.
6. Need actual limits listed but I'm OK with the idea.
7. 100% agree
8. This seems to not add very much to the proposal. It feels like this fits in with category #4.

 

I think the purpose is to ensure there are background checks on all sales, especially those at gun shows, I suspect. However, with respect to mass shootings - which constitute just a small percentage of gun deaths - I don't recall any report stating the gun was purchased at a gun show or from a private person.

I'm not sure this answers your question about a correlation.

 

None of these items are addressing keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Almost every one is reactionary.

How about we work a little harder on not letting the wrong people have semi-automatic weapons in the first place.

In other words....being proactive.

The post I made yesterday is what I had in mind:

If you look at the social media posts made by everyone of these shooters.....to call them red flags is a massive understatement. These are huge flashing neon signs saying "I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm - let alone a semi-automatic one!"

Wake up!!!

 

I proposed both of these items to the panel. Was hoping that the panel would choose more school counselors above SROs, so that one backfired, from my perspective. For the school entry + camera, I hoped we would opt for "during school hours," but the panel went whole day. Ultimately, I respect what the panel agreed upon. For me, it was illustrative of the challenge of trying to get folks to agree on gun issues.

I think @OklahomaGator mentioned this, but the panel was equally "bipartisan." We also engaged in respectful discourse throughout the project.

 

BTW - @murphree_hall was the elected leader of the group who drafted and vetted proposals. It was a little like pulling teeth at times, but murph did a great job moving things along and helping the panel to produce. I think it was proper to have someone who has served in the military and who is familiar with firearms to fulfill this role.

 

I watched a news segment this morning where "helpline" information was printed on the back of student ID cards.

Assistance for kids who have concerns for their mental health - or other's I suppose.

I thought it was a great idea.

We live in a different world today than when I was growing up....that's for sure....

 

I totally agree with this. I was part of that and I got pretty tied up at work and didn’t get a couple polls in there that I wanted. I’ve put out here numerous times that the wait period needs to be extended to at least 3-6 months if no CC. At lest 30 days with one. Also I think all minor records need to be subjected to firearm background checks as well.