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.
v Obama have been able to keep control of the whitehouse for more than 4 years. How can we get people more informed and involved? blog de moda
Eric Holder is one of the worst appointments Obama has made, and Obama has made plenty of terrible appointments. blog de moda
Of course they should be prosecuted!!! There should be HELL TO PAY! for even the slightest hint of subverting the best interest of the public! blogs de moda
if they feel too comfortable here, they might muliply and after all become a severe pest... blogger de moda
standing in the back of the crowded room when Hilliary Clinton and Leon Panetta and Obama watched the video of the killing of Usama bin Laden. She's very short. Free Stuff Online
They also didnt see the advent of the internet, Television, and radio allowing a few to preach their dangerious propaganda to the masses. Free Stuff By Mail
been able to keep control of the whitehouse for more than 4 years. How can we get people more informed and involved Free Stuff By Mail
nice post Free Stuff Online
Sounds like just the opposite, somehow. It would be good to know who supported what. Free Stuff By Mail
yYou asked "are you your politics?" First one would have to deternime what your definition of "politics" means. if your politics come from your philosophy, which in turn determines or is defined by the way you behave
For example if believe that everyone should be treated fairly, then I can expect to see my politics as getting People the right to vote and to earn a living wage
If you are talking about how to be have while discussions about politics, again my politics govern that as well, as I believe in discourse.
I am my politics. I AM GREEN PARTY.
With the internet growing so rapidly, the only way to keep us safe (which a lot of you will diagree with) is to:
One: Register everyone's medical reords, looking for violent tendencies, medical diseases & drugs being described, and list all members of the household who own and keep guns and ammo on the premises. Every state that sells and allows citizens to own weapons & ammo must comply, or that state will not be allowed to let it's citizens own any weapons at all!
Two: Require all persons who now own weapons to list all they currently own, whether required to be registered at the time of purchase or as a gift, or not.
Three: Give gun owners with unregistered weapons, 30 days to register them, and after 30 days without registering, either confiscate the weapons, or allow them a "collector's status" promising they will never be taken off the property or used with live ammo.
Four: When someone in the household is later arrested for violence or threatening to commit violence to another person or legislator, or being under suspicion of taking new presriptions which may lead to unusual psychotic behavior, confiscate ALL weapons in the household until the owners can be resolved of those arrests or pay a fine for keeping the weapons while being under Court Order or being investigted until the problems are resolved.
Five: If someone has children under 18 on the premises, all guns and ammo must be locked up until the children are 21 and are proved to be of stable mind and body.
Six: Register ALL private exchanges (whether for cash or just a trade) so weapons can be tracked from person to person, or list immediaely when a weapon is lost or stolen.This will not be perfect, but it's a great start...Sorry so many of you won't agree, but if more deaths are to be prevented. this is the best way to begin.
Seven: When a weapon is taken to be cleaned, or ammo is purchased, the person requesting this must register the weapons and all new ammo purchased.
Eight: No one with criminal backgrounds - even pardoned ones - must go through a secondary re-check to make sure their psych reviews shows they are now stable & legal to own weapons and ammo.
Nine: Don't allow children to hold or discharge a weapon, even with parental supervision, without proper training by a bonafide shooting range which can be verified by a Certificate. Often parents are not the best teachers.
This will not top all crimes, but it's a head start... And we can build on these recommendations in years to come.
There is a deeper philosophic reasoning to this gun stuff. The media has American’s in a looping iteration of hate, war with everything, economic stress about any future, and of current times all this cultural stuff points to politics the people behind it along with the real reasons for the scandals that surface in politics, money or property or life lost because of the obvious corrupt profiteering going on in rampant rate. Obviously illustrated by the latest report America will have to pay for the last two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next forty years, a loss of six trillion dollars.
Rachael Maddow defines the idea that Democrats peel themselves off to Republicans, to help Republicans keep control of certain government sectors. Corruption is expected to be happening in the banking and Securities and Exchange Commission. Money is what greases the wheels. That’s why we have hell on wheels across the country. Money is flipping around like real loud free speech but suppressed from the average person. Then America has trickle down stress and hate that evolves festers and permeates in the poor and middle class. No jobs and poor pay. The perfect Wahhabi Republican algorithm.
Outback: I expected your question and my answer is in the form of additional questions I've already asked myself.
What are the odds I'll face that situation? What are the odds I will have a gun in my hand at that very moment of intrusion? Why live with the fear? We all have to live with our own conscience/thoughts about these things and I'm comfortable with my conclusions. I'm not judging your thoughts, they may comfort you and that's fine. I simply refuse to dwell on something negative that most likely is out of my control anyway.
I think it was last Thursday that Thom had an interesting conversation with Mike Papantonio. They talked about how the Democrats as a rule tend to be more fragmented as a political force while the Republicans seem to have the ability to unite as a team around issues of the utmost importance to them. These issues of course relate almost entirely to billionaires and Corp. America.
As usual the most important part of this unified effort by the Republicans is control of the national dialogue. With the corp. media as partner, this dialogue is usually their venerable distraction of God, Guns, and Gays. It always gets a lot of attention and favorable voter results at least in the red states. Control of this dialogue needs to shift. Don't get me wrong, gun control and same-sex marriage both are very important issues, but why in hell aren't the Democrats going on the offensive with the particulars of the Ryan budget plan, the Teabag terrorism, and the resulting sequester. Make the voters aware of what their so called Republican Reps. voted yes on. Polls clearly show the vast majority will be horrified at the details of Ryan's path to poverty. Remember, 2014 is just around the corner.
2950 - Interesting quote at the end of your post. I think humankind's inability to learn from history is documented just about every generation.
Regarding the question your father asked you, I've asked myself the same question; could I actually kill another human being? I've never shot anything bigger than a robin, guilty of eating cherries in my tree (and then felt overwhelming remorse). I own several nice bolt action hunting rifles with scopes, but have never hunted. I really do enjoy target shooting, though. But back to the question, I'll tell you the answer I came up with: Probably, if a) I was convinced this person was intent on doing me or my family grave harm and b) if there was no other solution such as bluff, reasoning, whatever. It would be very difficult and would be an event that would scar me forever.
Now let me ask you another question. What if you had a gun in your hand and an intruder in your home was threatening your wife with a knife?
PeacefulPatriot: I didn't read all of your reference post, only far enough to see several holes in your logic, like "And even if bans on assault weapons and large magazines don’t eliminate every mass shooting, at least it would criminalize their possession. Future mass murders wouldn’t be able to legally obtain such lethal weaponry *and* they’d have a harder time killing so many people so quickly without reloading."
Well, no, the criminally deranged mind WILL find a way to obtain an assault rifle and large magazines if that's his/her chosen method of assassination. We can't even keep commercial aircraft out of the hands of Saudi Arabian terrorists, and you think making assault weapons "illegal" is going to change things significantly?
Your argument smacks of the old saw "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs...."You also throw out a lot of numbers and then back into the conclusion that the numbers support your premise. But what if we make the statement that violence on every front is up significantly since the Assault Rifle Ban was lifted? What if the national psyche has been so numbed by the gratuitous warfare we've inflicted on the world since Gulf War I (elevated to a reality show series on our evening news) that something has "snapped"? Right. Let's fix it with gun control legislation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
And by the way, ten round magazines can be swapped out in less than a second with just a little practice (I'm not enough of a "gun nut" that I've actually tried it, but I could send you a you tube video if you're interested). So a maniac with an AK-47 can fire 30 rounds from 3 ten round magazine in just slightly less than two seconds more than with a single 30 round magazine. Do the math; at 3 rounds/second he could have expended 30 rounds in 12 seconds instead of 10 seconds (with a 30 round magazine). I don't think the killer's being limited to 10 round magazines would have altered the outcome at Newtown significantly.
I read that 11 kids made it to safety while the killer was reloading. If true, this simply doesn't support the theory that an extra two reloads would have saved multiples of eleven lives. Not in a worst case scenario, and if Newtown wasn't a worst case disaster, how would you define one? Probably by making the shooter a highly trained ex-GI that had gone around the bend....
I don't mean to trivialize this thing. I'm just objecting to all the hysteria that surrounds this issue and objecting in particular to the faulty "logic" on display here.
Outback says....."And if that day ever comes, I intend to be fully armed."
I remember as a kid I made a similar comment to my father about our, "his," gun collection. I was referring to the possibility of having to protect the family from an intruder. He looked me straight in the eye and asked.....do you really think you could shoot someone? I was silent and he just walked away shaking his head. I felt shame and as I thought about it I came to realize my comment was more based on fear than the actual reality. I never brought it up again but never forgot his reaction either. His guns were simply tools for hunting and nothing more.
I agree with you that society has become exceedingly violent. I believe this violence has roots being nourished by a republican ideology that states our main problem is, the rich don't have enough. To fix this problem the rest of us have to keep giving up more and more until the rich have it all..... This comment inspired by something David Cay Johnston recently said.
"In history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; there you can find for yourself and your COUNTRY examples and WARNINGS; fine things to take as models, and base things, ROTTEN through and through, TO AVOID."
Livy , 2000 years ago!
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/562069_10200533680520748_470...
The 2ed ammendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about the people protecting themselves from tyrants both foreign and domestic. In order to control the people they must be disarmed.
I Know you read the current comments, and as this is not about nuclear power (collect methane from landfills) l'll try to be brief. Mike Papantonio was on your show Thurs and he furthered the discussion re: progressives ability to unite and accomplish. A gentleman called about 2:50pm est. - I think his name was Clayton from Pine something Illinois.
He said in essence that the Democrats were progressive and were getting things accomplished. (I disagree on both counts but no matter) then he said we don't need any big shots, or head honchos coming around telling us that we are unsuccessful.
Two problems: 1) I was disappointed that you didn't have Pap's back, the stalwart progressive that he is. And that you didn't tell the guest of Pap's accomplishments FOR US in the struggle (not to mention plug his show and CPT ) so that man could see for himself the schooling he's missing
But 2) THAT is the problem with Progressives like Pap says, we think we know everything. CORPORATIONS are destroying us and we need to walk away from them in every way possible. ESPECIALLY POLITICALLY. If your politicians are taking money from corporations, they are not serving you as well as they could. And ALL Democrats are not Progressive. If you remember the progressive budget vote, 65 DEMOCRATS voted against it. Bill of Rights Defense Council has a saying: "Dissent is Patriotic" . If you can't take the criticism, of Democrats, and Obama how are we going to shape progressives into what we need them to be.
(original was made on cell phone, can't see the preview)
The problem is guns and the people who own them and use them.
Those kids in Newtown weren't killed by blunt instruments. If it had been illegal for Mrs. Lanza to buy an assault rifle and extended clips, might her son have still killed her and those children? Perhaps. We'll never know for sure, but what we could have prevented was Adam Lanza firing as many rounds as he did in such a short time.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
If I may, I'd like to share some facts I posted just yesterday at http://didyoucheckfirst.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/mass-shootings-the-numbers-dont-lie/
---
If it feels like gun violence has gotten worse since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, it has.
This Facebook meme was the topic of some discussion today.
Predictably, there were opinions in support of and in opposition to the proposition that mass killings are up since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire.
Is there a cause and effect as the meme clearly implies? I don't know so let's put that debate aside for the moment and just look at some facts and some data.
I love facts and data. They don't lie and they have no agenda (except in the hands of those with one).
I don't deny that I support some pretty significant changes to gun laws as a way to have an effect on gun violence. As for the data, here's the most extensive analysis I've found so far. Most of it comes from Mother Jones. (Sources are listed below.)
FACT: The Assault Weapons ban was passed on September 13, 1994. It applied only to weapons manufactured *after* that date.
FACT: There were 15 mass shootings in the 10 years it was in place.
FACT: In 3 of the shootings (20%), an assault rifle was used. In 13 shootings (87%), semiautomatic handguns were among the weapons used.
Now contrast that with the last 8 ½ years.
FACT: There have been nearly twice as many mass shootings at 28 and counting since the assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004.
FACT: 27 of them occurred since 2005. Counting all 28 would be almost one-half of all 62 mass shootings dating back to 1982. (Clinton's taking a politician's liberty with the math, but he's not that far off.)
FACT: In the mass shootings since the assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004, assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns were used in basically the same ratios as during the ban; assault rifles were used in 6 (21%) of those shootings, while semiautomatic handguns were used in 23 (82%), including 3 of the shootings where assault rifles were also used.
Cause and effect? It's hard to say with certainty, but there's no denying that there are more mass shootings overall and more mass shootings involving assault rifles after the ban than during the ban. In fact, there have been twice as many mass shootings in just 85% of the time. That ought to trouble all of us.
It ought to be obvious, too, that more guns in fewer hands has not made us safer. (See "Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline") The data seems to point to just the opposite.
Perhaps the real point to this meme is best (and to your post, Outback, is) captured by this passage at Mother Jones:
“More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semiautomatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds.”
Will a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines *stop* all mass shootings? No, nothing will do that. Sadly, disturbed individuals will find ways - legal and illegal - to kill people with and without guns. We're a violent society that embraces violence in far too much of our culture. There are no simple solutions for changing that.
There is, however, data that points to a meaningful degree of change.
If Feinstein's bill were enacted and the weapons used in half of the mass shootings of the last 30 years had a chance of being completely unavailable to Americans, wouldn't that be worth it?
Even if all we banned were assault rifles, the data indicates we would seem to have some potential to eliminate about 1 in 5 mass shootings.
And even if bans on assault weapons and large magazines don't eliminate every mass shooting, at least it would criminalize their possession. Future mass murders wouldn't be able to legally obtain such lethal weaponry *and* they'd have a harder time killing so many people so quickly without reloading.
Somehow our democracy survived when automatic weapons like machine guns were made illegal. Unlike those who live in fear of tyranny or invasion, I believe that my country and my fellow citizens will endure without military-style assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
I'm also completely confident that if it means even the chance that we'll have fewer mass shootings our fellow citizens who are assault weapon aficionados will survive surrendering (yes, I said surrendering) those firearms and learning to live with shorter adrenaline rushes while they target shoot on weekends. They've managed to get along without Tommy Guns. They can get along without AR-15s and 30-round magazines.
Sources:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html
News flash from the past week:
(Don't know if my original post made the cut, so I'll correct my bad grammar and post it again) ....
"One person was injured when a red Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon crashed into the Wal-Mart in San Jose, California, about 50 miles north of San Francisco, the San Jose Mercury News reported. The driver got out of the car and assaulted three people, the paper said." As it turns out, the assailant used a "blunt object". As it also turns out, most assaults, including those resulting in death to the victim, are committed with "blunt objects", including clubs, baseball bats, and yes, fists. So I really do believe we need a ban on "blunt objects" as well as high capacity magazines.
Listen people, the problem is not high capacity magazines. It's not even guns. It's the fact that The United States of America is an exceedingly violent society and has been since it's inception. Use just a modicum of reason and look at the evidence! Look what we did to the Native Americans from Plymouth westward. Look at how we treated black slaves, right up through the Jim Crow South. (For that matter, look at how society treats blacks today.) How about our treatment of the Mexicans on our push toward "manifest destiny"? Viet Nam. Iraq. Afghanistan. On and on and on .... You want serious violence? I give you United States foreign policy, past and present.
Fact! Guns are never going away in this country, even assault weapons with 30 round magazines, because there are already so many of them in the public domain. Any attempt to make them illegal will simply create a huge black market, like every other attempt the government has ever made at prohibition. Only this time, only the "bad guys" will be well armed.
Fact! guns don't kill people. People kill people. And as long as there are enough people in this country so gullible as to believe otherwise, willing to roll over for what they've been told is "politically correct", we all stand a very good chance of losing what remains of our civil liberties. And in support of that statement, I harken you back to Germany, 1939!
Yes, what happened in Newtown was a tragedy. But as one legislator in CT put it (to paraphrase), the problem wasn't guns. The problem was the individual and his mother.
I hope to hell the wheels never come off of this country. I hope we can collectively steer around the abyss our corrupt institutions are steering us toward. But the prognosis is not good, folks. And if that day ever comes, I intend to be fully armed. It's your right not to be. Good luck.
Some time ago a scientist once said that humans are made of star dust, and perhaps an immortal essence of a past person’s, too, brought you to this time and place by the energy of the sun which is fusion. It was a stunning thing for me to hear.
However, it is fission that has waste as a byproduct; the so called fusion does not have the same waste as we know it. The possibility that man can create fusion about the size of a marble would remarkably change our way of life. Imagine a marble size fuel cell in every home.
Nano science could do it. Perhaps the very reason fanatics on the right reject science. But not all, especially the Koch brothers, illustrated an example in sponsoring a telecast of science research patching a spiders DNA with sheep’s DNA that produced an incredibly strong string where in tension and stress was harder than steel.
Ford pulled out of England because the Unions wanted too much.
The Sandy Hook shooter did not use an AR15, he had two handguns!