AWB response from Coburn

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

angsniper

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
0
Location
Yukon
Here's his response to one of the many I have sent recently:

Thank you for your email regarding gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

Like you, I grieve for the 20 children and 6 adults who were the victims of this senseless and appalling tragedy. Their families, friends, and the community are in my prayers as they mourn the loss of loved ones. As the nation has come together to provide support for the members of Newtown, ultimately, we are comforted that God “heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” (Psalm 147:3).

In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, there have been many calls for comprehensive gun control measures and a thorough examination of current federal, state, and local policies. I am open to having an honest examination of all the contributing factors and reasonable solutions to preventing future tragedies such as this.

There are many factors which should be examined carefully when considering preventive measures to ensure similar situations do not occur again. While a firearm was used to execute this heinous act, focusing on the weapon alone overlooks other key facts including the mental health of the killer. As a physician, I believe our nation could do more to ensure those with mental illnesses that are a threat to themselves and others have access to treatment and are prevented from accessing firearms. To this end, officials at every level of government must examine our laws and policies aimed at ensuring those who are prohibited from attaining firearms, including the seriously mentally ill, are identified and prevented from accessing firearms. Currently, persons who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” are supposed to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index, which is used by firearm sellers to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase firearms. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (P.L. 110-180) which established incentives for state, local, and tribal governments to increase the compliance of states reporting seriously mentally ill persons to the NICS system. However, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that these incentives have not been implemented, and the law has not achieved the intended purpose of improving the reporting rates of mental health records by states. As of October 2011, only 12 states had made substantial improvement in reporting, while almost half of the states, including Oklahoma, had barely made any progress in this area.[1] While states have primacy in passing laws and establishing policies on how to submit records to the NICS index, Congress should review, and amend if necessary, the recently passed NICS Improvement Act to ensure that it achieves it intended purpose of properly identifying and preventing access to firearms for those who are prohibited from it.

Knowing Congress does not have the capability to legislate away all evil, we must not disparage the rights of the millions of responsible gun owners and the vitally important ability to protect oneself and one’s family. Congress must also remain cognizant of the fact that, when certain types of guns are banned from the public sector, only criminals who already flout the law will be able to procure them. I firmly believe Americans are safer with the right to own and I will continue to fight to ensure the right of law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms is protected.

Criminals who misuse guns should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, gun dealers who knowingly skirt rules and regulations or intentionally sell firearms to unauthorized individuals should be punished harshly. However, government officials and representatives are oftentimes more interested in attacking the variable, in this case guns, instead of the root problems, which include illegal activity, mental illness and the sensationalism of violence in our culture.

Since Sandy Hook, several member of Congress have proposed re-instating a ban on assault weapons. Proposals banning certain ammunition clips or ambiguously defined “assault weapons” are unlikely to increase public safety because individuals with criminal plans will not care that their weapons are illegal. It is also unlikely to reduce crime rates, as several studies of violent crimes have found that assault weapons were involved in less than 2 percent of all the incidents. In 2004, a report for the National Institute of Justice examined the effects of the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2003 and found that “[t]here has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” The lack of correlation between assault weapons bans and crime rates is also notable, as gun violence rates have declined to multi-decade lows, even after the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004.

There are many instances over the last couple of years where law-abiding Americans have been able to defend themselves or others from violent criminals. For instance, at a recent shooting in San Antonio, an off-duty police officer working at a movie theater shot a gunman after he opened fire in the movie theatre parking lot. Another instance occurred in Colorado, when a parishioner was able to shoot a gunman when he began opening fire on the congregation during a church service, preventing a mass murder.[2] In contrast, the shortcoming of gun control laws can be readily seen in the failure of designated gun-free zones, where criminals have assurance that they will not be confronted by an armed citizen. With only one exception, every public shooting in the United States since 1950 where three or more people were killed occurred in a location where the carrying of firearms was prohibited.

In the days since the Sandy Hook shooting, local law enforcement in school districts across the country have heightened security at schools through increased patrols and safety measures. I believe every state and each school district must head up the effort to ensure proper protections are put into place and are working effectively. While some have called for federal programs to advance this goal, the federal government cannot be as effective in safeguarding our schools as state officials, local representatives, parents, teachers and school board members. Officials with close contact to the school and the students are best positioned to ensure the correct protective measures are in place.

For more information on the efforts of state and local officials to increase school safety and NICS compliance, I encourage you to contact your state legislators. You may find contact information for your state representatives at the Oklahoma Legislature website: http://www.oklegislature.gov/. The Capitol Connect website also allows you to easily find your representatives by entering your street address: http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx.

Lastly, as a society, we must examine the corrosive effects that violent video games and television shows and movies have on our society. Ultimately, individuals make the decision to carry out these ghastly acts, but the sensationalism given to violence by the media and entertainment surely impacts the minds of those exposed to such imagery, especially those suffering from psychosis.

Again, thank you for your email. Please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as we continue discussing these important issues. God bless.


Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator
 

abajaj11

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
31
Location
Tulsa
I agree with most of what he says. I don't agree that violent video games and television are responsible.

I agree, it's not the video games or the Quentin Tarantino movies. Video games have been thought to cause some increase in aggression, but if one has a good sense of reality versus fantasy, they cause no harm as per the research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies

The combination of psychotropic drugs and exposure to video games/movies is what is worrisome.
If a person is taking drugs that induce suicidal thoughts and cause a blurring between fantasy and reality, then should they be allowed access to video games and movies where realistic first person shooter scenarios are happening? I think the combination of psychotropic drugs, video games and movies leads to these individuals seeking out firearms to feed their screwed up reality/fantasies. Bottom line, do not give psychotropic drugs except in very limited cases, and then monitor the individual's access to media (i know i know....first amendment....but this should be a sick individual we are dealing with). .
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm
Unfortunately reality is...many kids are on these drugs today for no reason..except maybe lazy parenting and a school system that is liberal and messed up...
And this messing up of our kids could cause an implosion of our culture starting with the lack of recognition of the second amendment.
:)
 

jakerz

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
27
Location
Ada
I agree that drugs are an issue. It's a lot easier to just say that a kid needs to take some meds, then to spend time with them and figure out what's going on.
 

Dale00

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
7,570
Reaction score
4,150
Location
Oklahoma
In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, there have been many calls for comprehensive gun control measures and a thorough examination of current federal, state, and local policies. I am open to having an honest examination of all the contributing factors and reasonable solutions to preventing future tragedies such as this.
This disturbs me. Sounds like he is ready to compromise.

Knowing Congress does not have the capability to legislate away all evil, we must not disparage the rights of the millions of responsible gun owners and the vitally important ability to protect oneself and one’s family. Congress must also remain cognizant of the fact that, when certain types of guns are banned from the public sector, only criminals who already flout the law will be able to procure them. I firmly believe Americans are safer with the right to own and I will continue to fight to ensure the right of law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms is protected.
Not strong enough. Sounds like he's getting ready to accept banning high capacity mags and requiring background checks for all transfers.

IMO Coburn is waffling.
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
This disturbs me. Sounds like he is ready to compromise.

Not strong enough. Sounds like he's getting ready to accept banning high capacity mags and requiring background checks for all transfers.

IMO Coburn is waffling.



Did you read the whole thing?

He made it very clear that assault weapons bans do not work. He also addressed the failures of the gun free zones. What more would you like to hear?
 

sklfco

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
4,216
Reaction score
14,046
Location
claremore
I agree that drugs are an issue. It's a lot easier to just say that a kid needs to take some meds, then to spend time with them and figure out what's going on.
The end of this points to a big problem. Since many households have both parents working in order to but up all of the modern things we think we can not live without far too many kids are being left to their own devises. Parents expecting the schools to teach them all they need to know is never going to happen. And before you get to bashing upon me, you should know I took custody of both of my kids from my x. Its not easy but it can be done to raise kids decently.
 

Dale00

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
7,570
Reaction score
4,150
Location
Oklahoma
Did you read the whole thing?

He made it very clear that assault weapons bans do not work. He also addressed the failures of the gun free zones. What more would you like to hear?

He is leaving himself wiggle room to please the anti's. Typical politician's letter: "I'm in favor of this but on the other hand I like this and I'm open to reasonable measures" It is written so that we will read and grab onto what sounds good to us while not seeing how he is leaving the door open to losing part of our gun rights.

He needs to unequivocally commit to opposing the second amendment from any infringement. In addition one of his talking points should be that the second amendment is what keeps us safe so it is imperative that we reject any and all infringement.


As others have pointed out, we need to fight the bit by bit loss of our gun rights. Our liberty depends on this. I sense that Coburn is ready to compromise in order to look good instead of standing behind the second amendment without compromise. Standing behind the second amendment makes you a gun nut in Washington circles. This letter make me aware that Coburn needs to hear from us explicitly - "No infringement period, that is the reasonable position not compromise."
 

angsniper

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
0
Location
Yukon
This disturbs me. Sounds like he is ready to compromise.

Not strong enough. Sounds like he's getting ready to accept banning high capacity mags and requiring background checks for all transfers.

IMO Coburn is waffling.

This is the feeling I got too. I've been mailing all of them about twice a day so I'll just keep bugging the crap out of them. Too bad there's not a set of balls to be found.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom