Send a Tweet
- Advertisement -
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Best Web OpEds   

Thom Hartmann: How Guns Literally Go to Men's Heads

Quicklink Submitted By     (# of views)   9 comments
Author 4578
Message Stephen Fox
Become a Fan
  (34 fans)
Thom Hartmann by Ian Sbalcio.
Thom Hartmann by Ian Sbalcio.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org))
  Details   DMCA

If a driver must carry liability insurance because he could kill somebody, why not a gun owner? Why is it the Newtown or Parkland kids had been killed by a drunk or malicious driver, their survivors would have gotten a million bucks each from Geico, but the families of kids killed with guns don’t? Required liability insurance, by the way, is the most Republican/conservative of gun control measures.

Just as no insurance company will cheaply write insurance for a driver with DWIs, so, too, would they restrict people with domestic violence charges, etc. No government involvement necessary for this one, other than the simple requirement to have the policy so long as one owns a gun.

There are many reasonable ways to reduce gun violence in the United States without outlawing guns. It’s time we started a real conversation about how to enact them. -Thom Hartmann

Read the rest of the story HERE:

At www.laprogressive.com

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Stephen Fox Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Early in the 2016 Primary campaign, I started a Facebook group: Bernie Sanders: Advice and Strategies to Help Him Win! As the primary season advanced, we shifted the focus to advancing Bernie's legislation in the Senate, particularly the most (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this quicklink has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

6 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments


Gary Lindorff

Become a Fan
Author 86636

(Member since Mar 21, 2013), 6 fans, 190 articles, 128 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

This makes total sense!!

Submitted on Tuesday, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:13:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Daniel Geery

Become a Fan
Author 1198

(Member since Jul 9, 2009), 69 fans, 352 articles, 3547 quicklinks, 16483 comments, 180 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Thom Hartmann used to be one of my favorite persons.

BUT he somehow didn't have more than eleven minutes to speak about the most important discussion of our species and life on earth click here

So I'd call him MOST SERIOUSLY out to lunch and an utter distraction from that which matters.

Submitted on Tuesday, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:46:40 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

Stephen Fox

Become a Fan
Author 4578

(Member since Jan 21, 2007), 34 fans, 435 articles, 637 quicklinks, 3282 comments, 14 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Daniel Geery:   New Content

Thus, you choose to dismiss the counsel of someone you don't like for one reason? This is a peculiar trait among the left-leaning armchair pundits which I strenuously try to always avoid, and I always credited you with more accurate functioning powers of perception, Daniel. Gun control is a very desperate situation and requires more flexibility in examining anyone's possible solution. Perhaps it is your focus that is the distraction.


Who in fact does espouse any interest in what is your major concern? (That is a serious question)

Submitted on Tuesday, Jul 30, 2019 at 8:06:18 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Daniel Geery

Become a Fan
Author 1198

(Member since Jul 9, 2009), 69 fans, 352 articles, 3547 quicklinks, 16483 comments, 180 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Stephen Fox:   New Content

Thoughtful response BUT the urgengy of this issue overshadows all else. I think of "the perfect mate," who fulffills one in every conceivable way, but just happens to engage in killing a child on the side every once in a while.

What good is a home or anything else if there's no planet to put it on?

If not for the gravity of the situation, I agree with you completely. As I usually do, btw.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:36:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

David William Pear

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter

(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 48 fans, 78 articles, 340 quicklinks, 3594 comments
Facebook Page Twitter Page Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

If somebody injures or kills a person with an automobile accidentally then it is covered by insurance. If they are criminally negligent or did it on purpose, then it is manslaughter or murder and not covered by insurance.

Likewise, if the accident is with a gun it can be covered with homeowners insurance, a special rider and an umbrella policy.

Whether a person is insured or not does not relieve them of financial responsibility. Moral: if you own a gun, get insurance.

If they don't already have it, here is a new product for your friendly insurance company: uninsured gun owner insurance (i.e. like uninsured motorist).

P.S. Here in Florida, I advise people not to blow their horn, play their radio too loud, or get in an argument over a parking space. It often ends badly.

Submitted on Tuesday, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:25:55 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
Indent

Old Codger

Become a Fan
Author 23441

(Member since Oct 2, 2008), 9 fans, 37 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4949 comments, 4 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to David William Pear:   New Content

You are mistakenly attempting to argue that people who own guns have acquired them legally. Nothing could be further from the truth or reality.


Yes, most gun owners are responsible and law abiding individuals. The ones who are not are certainly in the minority. It is those people that you should be targeting. If you are going to proceed on the hypothesis that somehow a fund could be established from the responsible owners to cover the irresponsible owners you are on a road that goes no place.


Those who shoot up places and kill indiscriminately typically have mental health and emotional issues that no insurance company is going to underwrite. No one can put any pressure on those types of people to encourage them to not inflict carnage on others. It is just a fact of life we all have to get used to.


My carrying insurance isn't going to change anything. Someone else is going to go on a rampage. Odds are they won't have liability insurance. Then what?


You can't place a financial burden on a certain class of people for the actions of some one else that they have no control over, or can reasonably be expected to have control over.


If your ultimate goal is to make gun ownership cost prohibitive, the NRA is going to shut that effort down, and in the process dramatically increase their membership. It will also increase the size of the Republican party.



Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:41:20 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Stephen Fox

Become a Fan
Author 4578

(Member since Jan 21, 2007), 34 fans, 435 articles, 637 quicklinks, 3282 comments, 14 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Old Codger:   New Content
David Pear is not arguing anything, just logically extending the ground work for the clearly acceptable solutions posited by Thom Hartmann. These solutions will probably move forward whether you like them or understand them as solutions. Sorry to have to be so blunt to you.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:24:57 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Alexander Kershaw

Become a Fan
Author 500827

(Member since Nov 25, 2014), 3 fans, 381 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

When there is an epidemic of any disease and mass shooting must be considered a mental disease, an environmental causal vector is looked for. Among the brain chemicals that help control anger are serotonin and dopamine. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, by selectively killing gut bacteria that make up to 90% of serotonin has been causing many mental imbalances. We all get the urge to kill sometimes but don't because our brain chemistry is not sufficiently unbalanced. Serotonin deficiency has been linked to violent behavior and depression. Stephanie Seneff talks about it. Click Here

Banning glyphosate would do more to reduce gun violence than any other solution. Besides the reduction in gun violence, banning glyphosate would reduce autism, Parkinsons, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, diabetes and many other chronic diseases.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:31:36 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

Stephen Fox

Become a Fan
Author 4578

(Member since Jan 21, 2007), 34 fans, 435 articles, 637 quicklinks, 3282 comments, 14 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Alexander Kershaw:   New Content

I accept some of your primary points as ancillary causes, but the real cause is the lack of decent controls on guns, thanks to the ole NRA and their strangleholds on regulatory processes. Until that gets remedied and corrected, all of the glyphosate bans (there are many) and aspartame bans (there are none!) in the world won't do a damned thing in the USA. Interesting to compare gun violence statistics in nations that have banned or curtailed glyphosate, but I believe they were sane to begin with.


I have nothing but faith and respect for Dr. Seneff, by the way! You may be on to something. Baum and Hedlaw would have those statistics, perhaps, as they have a list of nations and regional jurisdictions that have banned glyphosate. The US will probably be the last to do so.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:24:34 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Quicklink? Post Comment