Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws


January 12, 2009, 03:29 PM
Just on the offhand chance that it has not been posted here before:

A good read, and almost certainly NOT what you'd expect.


If you enjoyed reading about "Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 12, 2009, 05:12 PM

I saw 'sensible' and almost didn't open it. I hate that word now.

Glad I read through that email chain.

Edit: This was wrong though:

First off, you might want to get over your obsession with "semi-automatic" guns - they have been around for a hundred years, and are a lot less likely to kill (military guns are designed for the tactically more advantageous goal of wounding) than if he had used an ordinary hunting rifle.

An M14 sure as hell wasn't designed to wound. Ain't sure a .308 fit's that bill.

January 12, 2009, 11:33 PM
I guess I am confused why someone would post misleading information about doctors in a thread where a doctor's group was actually supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Did no one even check out the link posted by the OP?

January 12, 2009, 11:34 PM
"Sensible" should make a huge red flag go up.

January 12, 2009, 11:43 PM
Before this gets to far off topic with old internet chestnuts, have any of you gone to the Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws website and read any of the essays? You might be surprised.

Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws was founded by gun owning physicians to counteract and refute the anti-gun activists in their professional organizations.

From their website:
A Position Statement by Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
In order to be considered sensible, an existing or proposed gun law must meet the following conditions:

A sensible gun law must save more lives than it costs.
Research shows that guns are used much more often to prevent crimes than they are used to aid crimes. Therefore laws that hinder the ordinary citizen's right to self defense with a firearm tend to cause a net increase in crime.

A sensible law must make the best use of scarce public resources.
For example, the money spent enforcing the law might save more lives if it were invested in other areas, such as medical research, drug treatment programs or voluntary firearms safety training.

A proposed gun law must be backed up by good quality, peer reviewed research showing that it meets the above criteria.
Junk medical science has no place in public policy debates.

A sensible law is one that does not weaken our society by inflaming anti-government sentiment.
Many gun laws raise concern about increasing government control of people's lives and unreasonably limit their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. This breeds disrespect for the law and for our government.

A proposed law should be reviewed by a legislative committee equally represented by both sides of the issue to determine the unintended consequences of that law before it is presented for a final vote.

A sensible law must be Constitutional.

Lest anyone say that Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws are a group of extremists who do not support any gun laws, we offer some examples of gun laws that we consider sensible:

It makes sense to prohibit carrying a gun when visiting a prison inmate or entering a high security military base.
It is sensible to prohibit visitors from carrying guns into government facilities that are likely targets of terrorists, such as the White House.
Although such measures are usually misguided, we believe that people and businesses have the right to prohibit weapons on their private property and ask violators to leave.
We support laws appropriating public funds for voluntary civilian firearms training.

January 12, 2009, 11:52 PM
Did no one even check out the link posted by the OP?

Good point. It is an excellent organization. I love it.

I just had to respond to the argument with the FACT that gun/bullet accidents are rather rare in the USA - especially when compared to another industry that applies potentially dangerous solutions to protect and help people.

If I am attacked, I want a gun. If I am sick, I want a doctor, healthcare and medicine (like surgery or chemo-therapy). Both guns and healthcare have the potential to kill me, but for both, I need it when I need it. One is villified, one is lauded. That is illogical.

And no matter how you measure it..the lauded one kills more people by accident.

January 13, 2009, 12:00 AM
I assume you mean physicians when you say lauded. Actually, according to multiple polls, the public trust in physicians ranks right above that of career politicians and lawyers.

Why? Because their professional organizations and educators have sold them out to special interest groups like the Brady Campaign. This is/was a group of physicians who have been fighting that. Unfortunately, they have not been as active as they once were. I have to wonder if that is due to gun owners villifying them simply because they were doctors. After a while, you just get tired of it and want to go shoot and enjoy life instead of struggling to save those who will not listen.

Life has the potential to kill you ReadyontheRight.

January 13, 2009, 12:27 AM
the public trust in physicians ranks right above that of career politicians and lawyers.

Isn't that a good thing?

I personally laud (is that a word?) physicians. They spend $$, time and reputation to put themselves out on the line and help people every day.

As I said above, the OP's link is just great. I love this organization's mission. Unfortunately, they apparently did not think about the Public Relations implications and they chose the unfortunate use of the word "sensible" in their name. Sometimes us Marketing Geeks can be worthwhile.

And yes. Life is dangerous. Both guns and healthcare can help make it less so - usually at a calculated risk. But I rarely see gun manufacturing, shooting or industry professionals calling for civilian limits on access to the medical industry. "Sensible" or not.

January 13, 2009, 01:17 AM
"Isn't that a good thing?"

I think the statement about their public trust rating was intended to show that they are barely trusted more than the lowest two forms of life on the planet. Saying your just above a politician or a lawyer is like being told the good news is you don't have AIDS or terminal cancer, it's just leprosy.

January 13, 2009, 01:33 AM
The founders of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws chose their organization's name over a decade ago. The term "sensible" was seen as being in opposition to "radical" back then, not as a type of creeping incerementalism it is seen as today.

Again, read the articles they published. Not all physicians think the same nor do they all subscribe to the party line of their anti-gun professional organizations. DFSGL was formed to get physicians out of the politics of guns, not to put them there.

January 13, 2009, 10:32 AM
"Unfortunately, they apparently did not think about the Public Relations implications and they chose the unfortunate use of the word "sensible" in their name."

I think they probably used that word specifically *because* it has come to mean "draconian" as regards gun laws. My initial reaction was the same as K3's; I don't know why I actually went to the web site anyway, but I'm glad I did.

I posted the link because it has some solid arguments against common anti-gun positions, and we need to have those in the back of our mind when we encounter (and discuss guns with) antis.


January 13, 2009, 01:19 PM
Wow, I have to admit that I had stumbled across the website long ago, but quickly left as I had made the assumption that we all had when we saw "sensible."

Looks like I was quite mistaken. I guess what turned me off is the way I found it - via Wikipedia's list of gun control organizations.

January 13, 2009, 01:21 PM
Both my dentist and (ironically) our vet are shooters and hunters. They both gun and reloading mags in their waiting room. The dentist has a 15 point rack up in his exam area.

If you enjoyed reading about "Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!