Fed-up AMA doctors overwhelmingly support gun restrictions in sweeping votes
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
They voted to support assault weapon bans, minimum buying age, and closing loopholes.
Semi-automatic long guns for sale are on display at Texas Gun,
one of the 6,700 firearm dealers located near the 2,000 miles long U.S.-Mexico border.
The doctors are in—and frustrated, according to a series of votes at the American Medical Association’s annual policymaking meeting wrapping up in Chicago.
The nation’s largest physicians group overwhelmingly voted on Tuesday to adopt a series of aggressive stances on gun control and other policies aimed at curbing gun violence, according to the Associated Press. These include blanket support of assault weapon bans and disapproval of arming teachers.
The sweeping support for the measures comes amid a streak of school shootings, high rates of gun violence in inner cities, and soaring suicide rates (firearms are the most common method of suicide, accounting for roughly 49 percent , according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
"We as physicians are the witnesses to the human toll of this disease," Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency-medicine specialist at Brown University, said at the meeting.
In 2016, the AMA declared gun violence an unrivaled public health crisis in the US and pushed for renewed research into causes and prevention methods.
"It has been frustrating that we have seen so little action from either state or federal legislators," said Dr. David Barbe, who ended his one-year term as AMA president this week. "The most important audience for our message right now is our legislators, and second-most important is the public, because sometimes it requires public pressure on the legislators," he told the AP.
The AMA's policymaking body, which includes many gun owners and gun supporters, voted 446 to 99 to back bans on assault weapons.
The members also voted to:
- Support laws requiring licensing and safety training for gun owners, as well as registration of guns
- Support any laws banning people younger than 21 from buying a gun or ammunition
- Push for laws allowing relatives to obtain court orders to remove guns from suicidal or imminently violent individuals
- Push for training for doctors to better recognize suicide risks in patients
- Push for eliminating loopholes that allow people with a legal history of domestic violence, including stalking, to buy or own a firearm
The AMA represents less than a quarter of the nation’s doctors, with 243,000 members in 2017. But it has been a heavy hitter in lobbying. Between 1998 and 2011, the group was the second highest spender on lobbyists in the country, spending $263 million.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
426 visitors
What do doctors know, anyway?
I'm seeding this article because I find it worthy of the time necessary to read it and to think about it. I will not be participating in any conversation here, but if you would like to discuss it with me, please contact me via Chat or Private Note - I will reply.
Yeah, but how would hunters shoot deer then?
It appears it was only delegates at a meeting that voted not all members and total membership is less than a quarter of all doctors. It would be interesting to find out how many total votes were cast in comparison to the total amount of doctors in the county. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be less than one percent of all doctors that voted for this.
I just found this -
Support for banning assault weapons, the measure adopted in a 446-99 vote.
So it was less than 500 hundred doctors that voted for the ban just a tiny fraction of US doctors.
But representative nonetheless.
Of an organization that less than a quarter of US doctors belong to. It is now easy to see why an overwhelming number of doctors are not AMA members.
Perhaps but it makes it no more relevant to issue at hand if it really is.
Lobbying is what makes the difference … without it, many pieces of proposed legislation would never pass - I may not agree with that kind of money creating influence .. yet it is what it is, gun lobbyist invest a great deal of money as well...….
Of the ones that don't, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that their position on gun legislation is the reason they refuse to join? My guess is that just about any doctor or nurse who has been involved in treating a wound from a high velocity round would support an assault weapons ban.
Kinda like that "4 out of five Dentists conclude" thing.
"The doctors are in—and frustrated, according to a series of votes at the American Medical Association’s annual policymaking meeting wrapping up in Chicago. "
Can we say …….. Irony ?
Because you should always listen to doctors. They know best!
What we have here is the logical fallacy of the Argument from Authority. i.e., we're supposed to listen to them just because they're doctors. Even if they were opining on medical issues, we should expect support for their position.
But here, they're opining on something that isn't even within the realm of their expertise. Being an expert on A does not make you an expert on B. Here we have lots of people highly trained in medicine opining on firearms, public policy, the constitution, legislation, military weapons, and psychology. I see no special reason I should be listening to some group of doctors about guns and gun policy. I sure don't need someone with a medical degree to explain to me that bullet wounds can be deadly.
Their opinion is no more compelling than anyone else's.
And anyway, as you can see from the picture, they have a history of being horribly wrong.
Apparently doctors and guns are designed with the exact same purpose. To shoot people. Not sure I want to know how you reload a doctor, or, where the magazine goes.
States can be bad news as well:
This might help it’s known as a syringe gun and is easily reloaded.
It's been asked before and I'll ask it again. What's an "assault weapon" and why shouldn't I have one? I have a right to bear arms just like I have a right to worship and speak as I like. That means I don't have to supply a reason to exercise the right. It means government needs a compelling reason to infringe on that right, with narrowly focused legislation to satisfy the reason.
Training, I approve of, but why license and register guns? What would that accomplish?
So it's ok to enter into a contract, serve in the military, vote, marry, and raise children at 18 but you can't have a gun? Why? Because some small percentage of 18 year olds who happen to be assholes have used the gun improperly? Why punish good 18 year olds?
What loophole? Federal law already declares that people convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence lose their gun rights. It's called the "Lautenberg Amendment" and it's been the law for almost 25 years. Most of the time, what people call "loopholes" are really matters of constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process or logistical or economic hurdles to enforcement of the law (i.e. there aren't enough cops in the world).
How come these doctors don't say anything about drug gang violence? A huge percentage of gun homicides are gang related or based on some underlying crime like robbery or burglary. It's not like 100 million law-abiding gun owners are recklessly marching about town shooting people at random.
Unlocked.
Good morning.