Are we making a rational argument?

[LOKNLOD]

One of the issues with Coburn is, IIRC, he does not intend to seek reelection next term.

Here was Coburn's response to my previous contact:

Dear Mr. Awesome,

Thank you for contacting me regarding
firearms and the Second Amendment. There are few issues more controversial in our society or more central to any discussion on freedom’s foundation.

Let me say from the outset that my response to you is not unique. As you may know from previous correspondence, I take very seriously my responsibility to thoughtfully respond to each letter or email individually. In this situation however, due the high volume of mail and my desire not to keep you waiting, I want to more generally share with you the principles that guide me in reviewing any legislation related our Second Amendment rights. With that in mind, please do not hesitate to write again with further comments. You can be certain I will personally receive your comments and respond to any additional concerns.

As you know, the discussions now ongoing in Washington regarding guns are driven largely by the senseless murders that occurred in Newtown and Aurora this past year. Unfortunately, the kind of unspeakable violence we saw on those darks days has become all-too-common in our society today. While I think most of the solutions being offered look more at symptoms than the real disease, I do think it is entirely appropriate for our nation to take a hard look at itself and seriously examine the causal factors behind violent outbursts.

First and foremost, this discussion on reducing violence must begin with one unshakable principle—our Constitution is the single greatest protector of life and liberty, and must not be infringed upon. The same Bill of Rights that upholds the value of each and every human life also recognizes our inherent right to protect ourselves. I reject any notion that one right must be sacrificed to strengthen the other. In fact, I believe it is just the opposite. This has been my guide throughout my time in the senate, and I think my record demonstrates that no other Senator has stood more firmly or alone in advancing these principles. If you are interested in learning more, you can view my legislative record online at http://1.usa.gov/UGN28K and http://1.usa.gov/XoG6eT.

With this as my guide, I do believe there is a legitimate need to examine our current system for keeping guns out of the hands of those who are already prohibited by law from possessing such weapons—felons and those adjudicated as a “mental defective.” While no legislation can stop every act of violence, including the tragedies of the past year, we should work within our constitutional authority to make these systems actually work. And the truth is, there is a gap in current policy that allows these already-prohibited individuals to skirt the law and purchase weapons. A large number of guns are sold outside of the current background check system and I believe we must re-examine our approach.

In reality, the current National Instant Check System (NICS), which is used by firearm sellers to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase firearms, is incomplete and failing to achieve its desired results. This is particularly true for those persons who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective,” and are supposed to be included in the NICS Index. As a physician, I believe our nation must do more to ensure those with mental illnesses who 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 compliance with current laws and policies aimed at achieving this. 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. 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.

In the weeks ahead, I am willing to listen to and discuss this issue with anyone who wants to seriously deliberate it. We have much to gain from the discussion, including examining the obvious impact of violent media, the breakdown of the family unit, the lack of available mental health options, and the failure of the current administration to prosecute gun crimes. It may surprise you to learn that prosecutions of federal guns crimes have dropped dramatically in recent years, and I believe Congress has a duty to hold the President and his Justice Department accountable for this lapse.

As I enter these discussions, I do so with a firm commitment to our Constitution and the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are no easy answers, but I do not believe we have anything to fear from an open, honest debate.

Thank you again for your message. If you have additional concerns, I do hope to hear from you soon.


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

[BaiHu]

Good piece:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticl...20130112111811

[David Armstrong]

from Hatchetman:
I'm sorry this is devolving into circular silliness. Again, if you are aware of a rational argument gun banners are making please post it.

I believe I have already done that. I, along with a large percentage of fairly conservative people, feel closing the gunshow loophole is quite rational. Many/most agree that we need to do a better job about restricting access to those with mental issues. But more to the point I'm making, we find many/most of their arguments irrational, they find many/most of our arguments irrational, and each side is sincere in their position.

[Drang]

I, along with a large percentage of fairly conservative people, feel closing the gunshow loophole is quite rational.

You have failed, however, to show that there is any need to do so. What positive thing will come from requiring me to access NICS--which I cannot legally do at this time--in order to sell a gun at a gun show?

[Hatchetman]

I believe I have already done that. I, along with a large percentage of fairly conservative people, feel closing the gunshow loophole is quite rational. Many/most agree that we need to do a better job about restricting access to those with mental issues. But more to the point I'm making, we find many/most of their arguments irrational, they find many/most of our arguments irrational, and each side is sincere in their position.

I note you failed to post that Yeti Unicorn Leprechaun second amendment abrogation rational argument you keep claiming exists and are rather equivocating by claiming that strong feelings somehow magically transmorgify into strong arguments, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your point. Rational arguments, BTW, don't need loaded terms such as "gun show loophole" to sway folks and indeed avoid appeals to emotion, poorly or wholly undefined terms, gross simplifications, et al.

I doubt any on either side of the issue have a problem with keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy folk, though there would doubtless be debate about what constitutes crazy, who determines what's crazy enough to prevent firearm ownership, and how onerous a system is created to track the mental health of Americans, and so on. As for the point you keep coming back to, a reasonable way to state it would be "banning private sales at gun shows." It would then be incumbent upon those advocating it to cite some statistics demonstrating there is indeed a problem (the stats I've seen anti-gun types use are outdated, from a small sample, and not particularly germane); define just how far this non-private sales zone reaches (as already stated there would be nothing to keep folks from meeting at the nearest burger joint, which means the proposed solution really doesn't address the claimed problem unless the "loophole" misnomer is in fact a back door attempt to ban private sales), define just how the system is supposed to work (some on the anti-gun side seem to be seeking to limit gun ownership by making purchase thereof expensive and burdensome while any private sales check system ought to be cheap and easy), and so on.

Then again there is always quacking like an irrational duck while attempting to assume a rational veneer.

[NETim]

I want to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy folk as well. Thanks to PC laws like HIPPA, that task is much, much more difficult. Is it rational to believe an expanded background check will overcome an already plentiful supply of Federal inertia and stupidity?

[BaiHu]

I want to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy folk as well. Thanks to PC laws like HIPPA, that task is much, much more difficult. Is it rational to believe an expanded background check will overcome an already plentiful supply of Federal inertia and stupidity?

When too much govt and PC gets in the way, just add more govt and PC to guarantee that nothing gets in the way

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[peterb]

You have failed, however, to show that there is any need to do so. What positive thing will come from requiring me to access NICS--which I cannot legally do at this time--in order to sell a gun at a gun show?

My wife & I were just talking about this. We both have casual friends at work -- I've been to the range with some of mine -- but we really don' know a lot about them. If I was going to sell a gun to one of them, I'd feel better knowing they were able to pass a NICS check.

I know the NICS check is nowhere near perfect. Right now I could choose to work private sale through a FFL, but that's inconvenient and adds cost. I don't think that I should HAVE to run a background check for all private sales, but if there was a fast, free way of doing it, it'd be a nice option.

If someone's in the NICS database as being ineligible to own firearms, I think it's a good thing to keep them from buying firearms unless there's strong evidence that the database is wrong.

[David Armstrong]

You have failed, however, to show that there is any need to do so. What positive thing will come from requiring me to access NICS--which I cannot legally do at this time--in order to sell a gun at a gun show?

I doubt there is any NEED for folks owning dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo, but I support them doing so. Need is irrelevant. I have posted reasons why I and others think closing the gunshow loophole would be a good (positive) thing. You are welcome to disagree

[David Armstrong]

I note you failed to post that Yeti Unicorn Leprechaun second amendment abrogation rational argument you keep claiming exists and are rather equivocating by claiming that strong feelings somehow magically transmorgify into strong arguments, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your point.

Which pretty much tells me that you either are not following what I am saying or are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.

Rational arguments, BTW, don't need loaded terms such as "gun show loophole" to sway folks and indeed avoid appeals to emotion, poorly or wholly undefined terms, gross simplifications, et al.

No loaded terms at all. It is a common term that has been used a lot by both sides and has been clearly defined by various parties, including me.

As for the point you keep coming back to, a reasonable way to state it would be "banning private sales at gun shows." It would then be incumbent upon those advocating it to cite some statistics demonstrating there is indeed a problem (the stats I've seen anti-gun types use are outdated, from a small sample, and not particularly germane)

Apparently even when presented with statistics and data that provide exactly what you ask for you reject them based on your own beliefs. That pretty much covers the issue, IMO.

define just how far this non-private sales zone reaches (as already stated there would be nothing to keep folks from meeting at the nearest burger joint, which means the proposed solution really doesn't address the claimed problem unless the "loophole" misnomer is in fact a back door attempt to ban private sales), define just how the system is supposed to work (some on the anti-gun side seem to be seeking to limit gun ownership by making purchase thereof expensive and burdensome while any private sales check system ought to be cheap and easy), and so on.

Which, again, is certainly one side of the issue. From another point of view it appears you are only offering irrational platitudes and red herrings trying to deflect from the actual issue...sales of gun at gunshows conducted without a background check. You sound exactly like the gun-grabbers using shotgun arguments about "what if" stuff in an effort to mislead, hoping that if you toss out enough items one of them might stick Sorry, I don't buy it.

Then again there is always quacking like an irrational duck while attempting to assume a rational veneer.

Yes, just as there is hiding one's head in the sand so one can't see the rational basis of another's argument. Strange how a supposedly "irrational" argument is supported by so many folks with some pretty good credentials on both sides of the gun argument. Which again brings me back to my point. BOTH sides present rational arguments....TO THEM. BOTH sides present irrational arguments...TO THE OTHER.