Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
#5 - Look into the reason The Founders required gun ownership
Looks to me they had a need because there was no standing army
And, now the prevailing belief is that owning a gun is a blasted "right"
Hot Coffee: When did Thom ever say he wants us to give up the right to own guns? That's like me saying anti-abortionists want me to give up the right to have sex or something.
#1 - Common sense... is it not?
Where has that concept gone?
I haven't heard anyone comment about the potential danger inherent when armed citizens become self appointed law enforcement officers??? What if ole Tex had accidentally shot a couple of bystanders as he went all wide eyed and whip silly shooting at a fellow gun toter? It could have easily happened. Remember, he's becoming the judge and jury in adrenanlin rush seconds. The word vigilante comes to mind. Big difference between hunting deer and hunting people.
I recently came across a statement from my late (radical feminist progressive) mother, dating from the 1960s or early '70s. It's one I hope Thom likes and will use on the show:
Rags make paper
Paper makes money
Money makes banks
Banks make loans
Loans make poverty
Poverty makes rags.
Love your show!
What is crazier than gun lovers trying to blame crazy people for ruining their irrational love of guns.
Forget about the victims of gun violence! They are not important when it comes to the need for gun lovers to have, hold and caress their cherished guns.
We are just chopped liver compared to their obsession with their beloved guns. Like many drug addicts, the lives of others are unimportant compared to their uncontrollable urge to get high squeezing off a few rounds of target practice.
So what if the country is awash with guns, killing tens of thousands of people every year? Is that more important than their self-serving interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
The scary part is that they will never be convinced otherwise.
Geez Thom it was smart of you to remove the pic of you showing off your brothers .40 cal. before you started posting anti gun posts.
Have you insisted he give up his gun(s)?
Lets give up ALL our rights hoping someone else will keep us safe.
Did you notice police were still on the way to the crime when the armed citizen took down the shooter?
Living in Australia (and having lived in the UK and Germany) I can only shake my head at the situation in the US. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps
I find it strange, though, Thom, that the your article is accompanied by the frequenly shown image of you with the caption "Trying out my brother's .40 cal".
Two American families - friends of mine from my time in Germany - live in the US and have NO GUNS.
Oh, there are mentally defective people involved here, that is for sure! However, the mentally defective people are the elected officials who are sociopaths and have no empathy for the slaughter of our people -- which they allow/prefer over losing their "elected" positions of power over us.
We test people who want to drive a car, become a doctor, lawyer, pilot, teacher, etc. However, when we hand the very critical control of our very LIVES over to these politicians -- no tests ... never even an option!
Mankind's progress has unwittingly been retarded by these mentally defective individuals for as long as there have been written records. The internationally acclaimed expert on this issue is a Dr. Hare, of Canada. He has devised a test which can detect psycho/sociopaths and we, the people of the world, should start testing not only our politicians, but major CEOs, military leaders, religious leaders, etc.
Can you imagine where the world would be NOW, if we hadn't been historically handicapped all along by these soulless, destructive individuals?
This is NOT a complex issue. There has been shown to be a direct correlation between how many guns are available in a country and how frequently they are used to inflict injury and death on that county's citizens. Australia is a prime example. When a consevative government clamped down on gun ownership, the rate of gun injuries dropped accordingly. Trying to complicate this issue is self-serving BS on the part of Republican politicians who are owned, "lock, stock, and barrel" by the gun lobby. America has as many guns in private hands as it has citizens, and the number just keeps increasing. One more reason we are the laughing stock of the Western world.
The First Baptist Church massacre is called the worst mass murder in Texas but it's only a few victims more than the Lubbock, Texas cafeteria massacre. No one was willing to regulate guns then and they are not willing to do so now. They love their guns more than people.
Then I suggest you re-read post #22 item #3
or wait until tomorrow and
Deepspace, I'm normally in total agreement with you, but in this case I believe you have fallen prey to the common problem of wishfully hoping for an impossible solution to a real problem that is simply dwarfed by the magnitude of man's general inhumanity to man. Regardless of the reason we have this problem, the fact is that it exists. I read at one point that there is roughly one gun per capita in this country. Pragmatically, and regardless of any attempt to legislate the problem away, this isn't going to happen. Take the Las Vegas shooter you cite as an example. By all accounts, this was a guy who would never have shown up on the radar of any screening authority. This is not to say I disagree with you that sensible measures shouldn't be taken to keep guns out of the hands of those who have violent histories or diagnosed mental issues. But that's just an incremental fix, not a solution. What about nuclear weapons? I don't think it's a stretch to state that these weapons in particular are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. Would you wish them away as well? And look at the people controlling them. Who is in charge of vetting them? I'm sorry if this sounds fatalistic, but in my view the problem extends well beyond who has access to assault rifles and the degree to which they are used in these spectacular crimes. To use stopgap's number (#17) of 38,000 gun related deaths in this country per year (0.0115 % of our population), my take is that, while unfortunate, we face problems that threaten global extinction of the species. And if, by the way, conditions deteriorate more gradually than they might under a worst case scenario, I'm going to be thankful that I still have more than my fingernails with which to survive. But as has been amply pointed out here, I'm just paranoid.
My my, granny's really got her bloomers ruffled this time. So animated when it comes to her guns! Such the expert! All the answers! The final word! Yup, the only problem in this here NRA whore house is that we don't have enough assault rifles! The more the merrier on our streets, in our homes, shopping malls, schools, and churches. Makes you wonder why Republican politicians banned all guns in the Capitol ...where they live.
By all means, take a shower. You need one after that rant, which lacks any acknowledgement of the horrific suffering of the victims of our fetishized gun culture. Have you ever taken a bullet?
The United States is unique in the world for having by far the highest rate of gun deaths. Beyond the emotional mostly angry arguments -- such as rootin' tootin' shootin' granny's -- that lack the backing of most legitimate studies, it's just a simple case of cause and effect: the more guns, the more gun deaths. Period. Everything else is just spin, ulterior motive, subjective opinion, and obfuscation.
As a nation, are we okay with that? Obviously we need to have this debate, but bear in mind that most sober-minded gun control advocates neither seek to take away all the guns nor even most of them. It is rather to: strengthen and enforce better background checks; create more robust data-sharing networks (e.g., military to civilian authorities; pertinent mental health record availability, inter-departmental cross-checks, etc.); restrict military grade weaponry on civilian streets with exceptions for target ranges, collectors, and in certain other cases; require proper training, registration, proof of legal ownership (title), and insurance -- exactly like buying and selling an automobile until it ends up in a junkyard.
Plus, national laws obviously need to be flexible enough to work with state and municipal laws, since different locales have different issues. What might work in Northern Idaho might be totally inappropriate and ineffective in Chicago and vice versa. Realistically, aren't there also many other wholly reasonable measures to consider that would go a long way in lessening the impact of increasingly regular mass-shooting incidents, unique to our country and culture? Of course you can't eliminate the threat entirely, but why is doing basically nothing always the only response of Republican "leadership" after every single mass murder involving assault weapons?
What is wrong with smart weapon control? Other civilized democracies have crazy people who act out too. But (excluding the occasional though still relatively rare organized terror attacks by ISIS, or whoever) only in America can one man so easily massacre 59 innocent souls and wound hundreds more in less than ten minutes, after hauling enough weaponry up 32 stories in a hotel over several days to keep a whole combat infantry platoon rockin' and rollin' in a firefight for several hours. Only in America can one man walk into a church with an assault rifle and 15 clips and slaughter 26, wounding over 20, 10 critically, again, in a matter of just minutes. Something is very wrong.
Sure there was a good guy with a gun who stopped a bad guy with a gun. But why did the bad guy have such a weapon (not a gun) in the first place? (Drill sergeant, "This is a weapon; this is a gun. This is for fighting; this is for fun." Okay, that was a different, ah, "gun," but you get the idea.) In fact, why did this whack job even get his bloody hands on any guns, including semi-automatic pistols?
More pointedly, why do so many parents have to face so many assault rifles where their children play, shop, go to school, and attend church -- war weapons that have no value other than to kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible? It makes no sense.
Here's an accurate synopsis of the actual scientific studies:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post
"If you do your research, in most cases when an armed active shooter is confronted by someone else who is armed, they immediately kill themselves. Overwhelming evidence supports that statement."
Here is the list Diane. Do your own research:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-...
Legend, you no NOTHING about what I respect or disrespect. Weapons violence has always been a problem in this country. Have you never read any real history, or have you contented yourself with what you learned in junior high? Try Howard Zinn, for starters. If I use the word "occasionally" it is not out of "disrespect" for the dead and wounded. It is by way of contrasting the frequency of the real travesties foisted on people numbering in the millions by sociopaths, right here at home, daily. This is a country numbering one third of a billion people. How many are impacted daily by policies you blithly ignore? Inadequate nutrition for kids. One of the highest infant mortality rates among the "developed" nations. The only thing you seem to find worthy of shouting about is "guns". Twice in this thread you have called me "paranoid". I suspect I'm one hell of a lot less paranoid than you. I take responsibility for my own safety as I live in a rural setting and "calling the cops" in the middle of the night is not a realistic option. Many millions of people are in my position and keep a gun around for personal self defense. Have you ever given a single thought to the number of lives that are actually saved by the fact that deranged people (who will always gain access to guns, sorry) are disuaded from violent crimes in rural areas because they never know what they might confront while contemplating a breakin? No, I guess that's a concept that is too abstract for you.
Well Outback, Looks like you got a girlfriend. Don't be surprised though if it is a man cross-dressing as Chelsea Cliinton.
changeX
Altering the rotation won't help. You and Ms. Bachmann obviously have a thing goin' on.
This is the second time you have commented on Ou812's avatar. Corndogs make you nervous or is something else going on?
Merry Christmas Ou812, what packages to open today?
Remember tomorrow is a double Christmas morning.
@#19
Outback, you will get nowhere with these lemmings. They bob their heads at everything anti-gunners pump out. Note, whenever a caller challenges Thom, he talks over and cuts the caller off calling him/her a troll. Remember in a leftie/socialists mind, a "Troll" is defined as anyone that does not agree with him/her/alphabet.
In the first hour of his show I would be hard pressed to find anything factual in his rant other than his Bloomberg fed cherry picked statistics.
1. Trump overrode Obama's executive order that an individual that was for applying for social security benefits would have to be reported to the FBI/ATF for answering questions incorrectly like "do you personally manage your finances or does someone else do it for you?". The order was an exercise is stupidity and just another way to entrap people that did not answer the question correctly. But, Thom a few minutes later blasted this own argument out of the water by saying "so what? Lots of people are mentally ill" talking over the Doctor that was trying to make his point.
2. When the 'good guy with a gun" engaged the Texas shooter, he dropped his rifle and he was continuing to return fire with a handgun. NOBODY but the investigators know if the shooter had more rifle magazines on him or in his car. We do know, he had handguns and was using them. So the "good guy with a gun" did prevent further casualties and nobody but the leftie dreamers think otherwise.
3. Sorry Thom, there is no right to drive a car, it is a privilege. If you are unhappy with the constitution and the second amendment, get your lefties in a group and vote to amend the constitution.
4. Thom uses Indiana as his excuse for all the gun violence in Chicago. Just a note Thom, if you go across state lines to purchase a firearm, the store must follow the Federal NICS background check and the gun will have to be shipped to a FFL dealer in the state of residence of the purchaser where before given to the buyer, another NICS check will be performed. This is the same NICS Federal background check that Gaby Giffords husband had to fill out one day after testifying to Colorado legislators the need for more gun control. If you buy a gun over the internet the firearm MUST be sent to a local FFL and a NICS check and waiting period enforced if the state requires one. Now, your flawed argument will be, straw purchasers. Trust me, there are tens of thousands of illegal firearms in the city of Chicago the need for someone to drive more than a couple of miles to get one is bullshit.
5. Our church has had armed ushers for years and the congregation is encouraged to exercise our second amendment rights and be vigilant all the time.
6. I have not heard if anyone else in that church in Texas was armed, do you know differently? Contrary to you and your callers beliefs, at very close range, a rifle and a handgun will both get the job done. If you do your research, in most cases when an armed active shooter is confronted by someone else who is armed, they immediately kill themselves. Overwhelming evidence supports that statement.
I now sound like Drc2. I need a shower.
Bernie -
https://i.imgur.com/5Q1Ky8e.jpg
from the horses mouth "This is a free-speech zone, so post as much or as little as your black heart desires. If you can't handle my politically incorrect posts, then don't read them and don't respond.”
Legend, You make great points that I throughly agree with you. If the NRA enthusiasts argument had any validity, this would be the safest country in the world.
You use the term"occasionally".They happen "occasionally" in other industrialized countries. They happen "frequently" in this country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-...
You compare the gun problem to the opiod epedemic. Trump just declared a public health emergency over opiods. Nothing about guns. And I would agree that it is not enough.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/30/opioid-epide...
Your words such as YUUUGE and hysterical show absolute disrepect for the dead and wounded. This was not a opiod over dose. This was the mass murder of 26 with 26 severly wounded church goers. Yes, it get coverage. These people also had rights and you do not repect that.
I do not have to think a little deeper. I remember a time when there were less mass murders and people were not as paranoid as you are.
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
Stopgap: I haven't been tracking your “outrage quotient”, nor am I intending to pick on you personally. My problem with the specious arguments promoting gun control that spring up every time an incident like this happens is that they are Manichean in nature. There is no honest discussion to be found on either side. For example, your camp includes accidental shootings, suicides and all other forms of gun deaths when quoting statistics in order to inflate your case. I agree entirely with you that the slaughter that happens occasionally at the hands of a deranged person with a gun is a tragedy. So are the number of highway fatalities caused by drunk drivers or those distracted while texting. Or the number of deaths caused by the opioid epidemic. And it's a fallacious argument to suggest that I think we should not address other serious issues because of the one issue that always gets the benefit of YUUUGE media coverage; that of a sick person with a gun killing dozens of people. It's a phenomenon that's guaranteed to evoke a hysterical response from a certain segment of the population. It's also designed by the powers that be, that is the corporate media and the oligarchs behind it, to distract from more fundamental issues that afflict our society. Are you suggesting that we would be in better shape fifty years from now if we left the decision as to who should own a gun to the very people (and their politicians) behind the massive violence we, as a nation, inflict upon the planet and upon ourselves? Think a little deeper into the “gun problem” in the USA and you'll see that it's a symptom, not a root cause.
You should have the right to attend a public venue such as a concert or church without being a target. We went a log time without semi auto weapons and had minimal problems. It is the amount of carnage that these weapons produce. 15 empty clips at the church. Republicans on the take to the gun lobbyiests do not want to do anything. Outback has stated before that he is paranoid to open his front door without having a gun at hand. The people that were killed and the ones that were wounded have rights also. When and where is the next one?
My outrage with the Military Industrial Complex has been stated here many times. But that is not the issue here. Am I supposed to relate my outrage about every issue that I'm concerned about to make a point about any single issue? Am I supposed to drone on and on for hours about every other issue that I'm outraged about? Do you require this of everybody else? Is that the course that we have to follow to make progress. Can't we address a single issue without covering everything else we believe?
I too can make irrelevant analogies like your rental truck analogy. For instance, should we not pursue cures to deadly diseases until rental trucks are banned?...should we not inspect our food supplies and our water supplies until rental trucks are banned?....should we not require safety regulations in industry until rental trucks are banned?...should we not enforce building codes until rental trucks are banned?...should we not enforce traffic laws until rental trucks are banned?...and so on...and so on....
The fact is, guns are the most prevalent and convenient method for exacting carnage. There were 38,000 gun related deaths in USA in 2016, which averages out to about 104 a day. The fact that we'll probably never completely cure mental illness or be able to stop derangement, is no reason to take the most sensible and doable action to minimize the carnage.
Guns have only one purpose, to kill. Rental trucks are generally a positive contribution to the needs of the many. Even knives have uses other than malice. Only one item is made specifically for killing; GUNS! Unless you count toys for those with arrested development as a positive contribution to society?