Sean Dooley

Someone is shy

Sean hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Wow Corbin, your response made me go look at the chart again to make sure I posted the right thing! There is no "gun grab" there, and there nowhere does it remove personal responsibility for actions. There are common sense approaches that treat gun violence in much the same way we treat drinking and driving--as a correctable, wasteful loss of life. The public health approach to drinking and driving has been very successful, but we also didn't have anyone irrationally bleating that "they" were going to take away all of their cars. I do like that you admit that it is a trade-off between freedom and death rate, as the gun homicide rate in the US is undeniably multiples higher than comaparable developed countries. The question becomes, how many preventable deaths are acceptable to you in order to preserve the have unfettered access to weapons. Would you be OK with mandatory background checks if it saves 10 lives, or 100 lives, or would it have to save a thousand for example? I don't know the answer, but I think that is the way the question should be framed.
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The numbers are staggering, but for some reason any attempt to rationally look at the situation turns into "they"-whoever "they" are-are trying to take away all of my guns! The rights of the gun owners are deemed paramount, without any consideration of the impact their righst have on others. Take a look at this... http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#qundefined It seems reasonable, no?
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Marianne, do you feel that as an american you are part of the governmental process? Your posts constantly refer to "them" and the "government" as if you have no say or ability to effect change. But then you refer to court cases that adjudicated some of your issues in your favor, how you support current law, etc. so you must have some faith (a little?) in our system? I am not so sure. You bring so much anger and dire predictions of the awful hypothetical future we face, and you make them with such a broad brush and such certainty when predicting the future, a future nobody can be certain of. This topic is about making changes in public policy from the status quo in one specific area, but you have broadened your responses to such a level that it makes me wonder if your posts are about the topic at hand, or if you would be against any changes that involve governing or government. Try to keep it realistic in your response if you could-we aren't Cuba, or Hitler's Germany, Cambodia, or any of the other scare countries that have been brought up. We are a representative democracy, one that is attempting to fix a problem through thoughtful discussion by the people and their representatives. So do you think any changes to gun laws that could be interpreted as more restrictive to the general US population should not even be considered?
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Thank you for the post....it goes to our earlier discussion on reasonable evaluation of our laws in light of current facts. Near the end of the article it concludes that the US is average in violence, but extremely high in deaths. (paraphrasing) It also concludes that concealed carry laws seem to be a wash....so what could explain the difference between the US and other developed countries that leads to more than 7000 extra deaths per year in the US? I maintain that people in other countires may be just as violent, but the US population is just much more effective at killing at the time of violence because we in the US have unfettered access to better weapons with which to kill. Every country has a violent population, we just let ours have the deadliest weapons, so the impact of the US violence is multiplied and deadlier. I'm no rocket scientist, but that is the one thing that sticks out as unquestionably different from other countries and in high coorrelation with the high gun homicide rate. Sure, mental health, TV, poverty rates, etc can all be considered contributing factors to differing degrees, but every country struggles to deal with those too. The 2 differences are our high homicide by gun rate, and our unfettered access to hi speed shooting weapons. Hmmmmm, draw your own conclusions. If you feel that unfettered access to all weapons is a neccessity to protect yourself from something, then that is fine. We just have to come to terms with the knowledge that (y)our national fear causes 19 unneeded deaths a day, and then decide if it is worth it.
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
1) We do have laws on the books that control and prohibit materials for suicide bombs. Only makes sense. 2) Wow, you should get out more. We in the US aren't that different from other places. 3) I never proposed banning guns completely, I suggested a review based on facts. I am former military and rated an expert shot....but my brain still functions.
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
As I said in the orignal post, if you don't like Canada as a peer, pick another developed nation, and the numbers stay true. (About 5x the rate of other peer nations, or 7000 extra shot dead per year in our country.) You disagree with the idea that limiting weapons would limit the death rate in times of violence. I'll support with an example....the Conn. shooter without semiauto/auto weapons likely would have bludgeoned his mom to death and hung himself or attempted suicide in another way (statistically he would have failed in one or both, but let's assume he completes the act) 2 dead is a tragedy. But in the US, although clearly mentally unstable, he has access to high kill rate weapons and is quickly able to kill 26 more. That is what I mean regarding limiting weapons would limit kill effeciency in times of violence. If you disagree with that, well, I have nowhere to go. You are correct that "guns don't cause the issues that lead to ...massacres". Guns just multiply the actual killing. I understand that there are underlying problems that lead to violence, and those should be addressed, but we can't pretend that unfettered access to weapons isn't an issue. Better mental health access would help in the abstract (it didn't in Conn, the young man had wealth and access to excellent mental health care and used it.) and other social issues certainly play in. But those are not exclusive to sensible changes in gun laws, and I don't see anyone saying that just changing guns laws will change everything. Would making modifications to guns laws mean we couldn't address the issues you allude to also? I am sympathetic to the those who cite their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as meaning that they can have a Hellfire missile-in theory. The problem is, the reality is resulting in about 7000 needless gun deaths a year in the US every year. This is life or death, not theory. If 19 extra dead a day is OK to defend the theory, then just say so. I think not.
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Please explain why comparing the US to Canada demographically is incorrect? Similar peoples, different outcomes. But, if you don't like Canada, pick another developed country....and to be clear, the difference in gun homidice rate is about 5x US/Canada, or 7000 more shot dead per year in the US than if we had the Canadian kill rate. (Or you can do the numbers on some other developed nation if you don't like Canada) I agree with you that on the margin it is much larger than gun control, but those are distractions . Where the rubber hits the road is at the time of killing, and the difference between America and other developed nations is that we kill each other much more effectively when there is violence. Limiting weapons won't end violence, but it will limit the death rate that results from that violence. As I said earlier, Americans and Canadians are much the same(TV, movies, internet, news, ETC.) but have a much higher gun homicide rate. Why is that? If you don't think it is the guns that are killing please tell me what you think it is.
Noface
Sean Dooley
Posted over 1 year ago
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Amernding or repealing the 2nd Amendment is not required, and it has zero chance of happening. The 2nd Amendment is generally used by the leadership of pro-gun advocates to cloud the issue-precisely because they know there is zero chance that the Consitution will be changed. The fact is we already have limitations on gun ownership, but they are incredibly light, and those laws clearly need to be revisitied in light of facts. The NRA and other gun rights advocates do a fantastic job for their constituents, but the unfortunate outcome is that more people die in the US. As an example, Canada is sometimes called the 51st state because it is demographically very similar the US. A young, new world country that watches the same TV, movies, and internet, and plays the same video games as people in the US. Similar in every way, except in the US there is nearly unfettered access to weaponry. The same in virtually every way, yet we are more than 5 times more likely to be killed by a gun homicide in the US. (.5/100k in Canada to 2.9/100k in US). When we are so similar to our demographic Canadian friends in so many ways, but different in just one, doesn't it make sense to take a look at the one difference-especially when we are talking about life and death? Think about it for the next 2 days, and while you do, statistically about 48 people will be killed by gun homicide in the US while 1 will be killed in the Canada. While you are cogitating, think about the fact that more people were killed by gun homicide in the US just last year than US citizens killed in the entire 10 years of the Iraq war and 11+ years Afghan war COMBINED. We rightfully mourn those losses on the battlefield, but the mourning at home quickly becomes hypothetical discussions about rights and feared domino effects of common sense legislation regarding deadly weapons. We need to stay focused on the facts as a country, and not get distracted by paid lobbyists on either side.