The Sikh and the Sick

The Sikh are the poor victims of the assault that a white supremacist killed in Wisconsin yesterday.

The sick are those who refuse to admit that the United States of America has a gun problem that needs to be at least discussed. There is never a good time or a good place to even discuss gun regulation in this country, and both parties are guilty for the impasse (not that there is no difference between the two parties, but this is truly a case of bipartisan idiocy.)

The Saddest Thing I've Read Today

In a CNN article about the Aurora shootings, I've found this passage:

[...] Caleb Medley, who was shot in the head, lost an eye and sustained from [sic] brain damage. "The surgeon came and talked to us and said he'd be in ICU at least a week," said Medley's friend, Michael West, who set up a website to help take care of medical bills and the needs of Medley's family."

Medley, as it happens, was uninsured at the time of the shooting.

In what country, I ask you, do the friends or the family of a shooting victim have to set up a website to raise the money needed to pay the victim's medical bills? Only in truly sick, twisted country that has it values upside down; one in which people with guns will show up at a rally to protest the advent of quasi-universal health care. In sum: only in America.

May Bill Moyers Live Forever

May Bill Moyers's tongue keep vehemently lashing the high, mighty, and heartless with the truth.



And as many pointed out today, it's harder to get Sudafed at your grocery store's pharmacy than to get ammunition and guns online.

Ezra Klein on Gun Violence.

A picture is worth one thousand words. Ezra Klein gives you 5,000 words of wisdom in Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control.

You Want A Rationale For Banning Assault Weapons? Here's One.

From a NYT article on the Aurora shootings:

"A law enforcement official who requested anonimity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue said that local investigators in Aurora believed that the gunman's semiautomatic rifle jammed as we was spraying the theater with bullets, forcing him to switch to a slower weapon. Had the gun not jammed, the official said, many more could have been killed."

And there it is, in one paragraph, the FACT that advocates of unlimited gun rights have to answer and fail miserably at doing: slower weapons kill fewer people (because people have the time to react, flee, take down the assailant, etc.) It's a fairly obvious fact that has no rebuttal.

So I am asking them a simple question: How much value do you place on the lives of each one of the victims of Aurora, Columbine, Virgina Tech? Is their value so negligible that it pales in comparison to your right to enjoy unlimited rights? (And in Colorado your rights are pretty much unlimited when it comes to guns.) Are those lives, and life in general, so worthless in comparison to your ability to own a large capacity magazine (a large capacity drum magazine like the one used in Aurora) and thousands of rounds of ammunition that no ban, no check, no safeguard against your rights is justified?

You know, of course, that the argument about criminals getting guns in defiance of all regulation does not stand in this case,nor in many other cases, because the killer got his guns legally. So, once again, I ask you: What value do you place on the life of those that guns killed? What concessions are you ready to make? Any?

One last thing: You always hear from "responsible gun owners" that one armed, responsible gun owner in the midst of a crime scene like the one in Aurora could prevent much bloodshed: Where was that responsible gun owner on Friday night, I ask you? Or where is he ever, for that matter. We have concealed carry laws in Colorado. What are the "good" guys waiting for? Unless everyone starts carrying, or unless those who carry are also blessed with foresight, that's a flimsy argument that does not stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

I am done, for now.

Tired of the Hypocrisy? I am.

To all the politicians who are shedding tears, expressing condolences, vouching support to the victims of gun violence, I will say this: Your game's up. We've heard it before, and we know you have taken us for a bunch of fools. Perhaps it's because so many of us act like fools that you have learned to take advantage of our gullibility, or our idiocy, but that does not make you right: it just makes you callous.

Tomorrow, the same politicians who have shed their tears, crocodile or sincere it makes no difference, will go back to work and do... nothing. Or perhaps something, but still too little to change things, nothing bold. When they looked the survivors in the eye, and told them that they will not be forgotten, they were lying. When they were calling out to the dead, to tell them that they will not have died in vain, they were lying.

And it's not just politicians. All gun owners who steadfastly reject the idea that we need new laws, because all we have to do is enforce the ones on the books are deluded (and because they are armed, they are doubly dangerous): The perpetrator of the Aurora shooting legally bought all his guns, all the ammunition, the tear gas, the body armor, the explosive materials. No red flags raised. So obviously the laws on the books do not suffice.

Should we then ban all guns outright? Ideally, we would live in a society that would not feel the need to arm itself, but that's not the case. Also ideally, we would live in a society where people would understand that human nature is not good or evil, altruistic or selfish: it's just human nature. Which means that some people are perfectly capable of behaving responsibly towards others all of the time; some are capable of doing it most of the time; some are jerks, and some are idiots. And some are good people who snap. So putting weapons in anyone's hands is a dangerous thing to do, and that's just realism, not statism.

Realistically, though, we cannot ban death by violence. People intent on killing can do it with supplies from the grocery store. Brutes can do it with their hands. People who snap can stab someone to death or run someone over with a car, and that's no reason for banning kitchen utensils or driving. But, once again, no one says that we have to make it easy for good people who snap, or plainly evil people, to take as many lives as they can in less than 60 seconds.

We can never prevent a scorned lover from killing his scorning love, as well as all children, parents, and grandparents, with a gun. But why be complicit in mass murder by allowing him (I'd say her, but female mass murderers are quite rare) to go on a rampage at a food court filled with innocent strangers, armed with an AK47 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Why not set up a system that makes it possible for "responsible citizens" to shoot their AK47 or other mass murdering weapon for fun at a shooting range, and ask them to lock their gun in a secure locker at the range before they leave? (That's just an example, of course, of things that could easily be done.)

No one needs an Uzi for personal defense, or 33 rounds in a Glock. If you do, then you are not a responsible citizen, but rather a drug lord or a bank robber.

And in the Die Hard series Bruce Willis starts off by killing bad guys with a pistol, then steals their assault weapons from them to finish the rest off. Surely, you can do the same if it ever happens to you that you need to save the world.

But if you do not recognize the fact that this country has a gun problem, that the odds that you will ever need a gun in self defense are one in several millions, lower than those of being killed in a random shooting, and that restrictions on the sale--and use--of guns, ammunition, and other murder weapons are necessary, then at least be frank: Tell the victims in Aurora, in Tuscaloosa, in Littleton, at Virginia Tech, and in all the shootings that occur in the country every year, that it's not a matter of the Second Amendment; it's not a matter of self-defense. It's not even a matter of freedom, because you have already given up your "right" to weaponize your car (certainly for most people drinking is as much of a pleasure as shooting guns, but we have accepted the removal of our freedom to drink and drive).

Tell the truth: You love your guns and the pleasure you get from owning them and shooting with them. You love it so much that you will rationalize any death for the privilege of being able to continue to own them and shoot with them.

Tell the innocent victims of all these mass murders and shootings, their friends, and their families that their death is but the price society has to pay so you can continue to enjoy your pleasure. That would be honest. Shedding tears for them while refusing to sacrifice some of your incredibly expansive rights is not, so don't cry for them. Not in my sight. Not in theirs.

America Must Come Together, Law-Abiding Citizens, and Other American Bullshit

No disrespect America, but a little tough love is in order: I am tired of your bullshit.

In the wake of just the latest, not the last, shooting spree against a bunch of innocent people, America's reaction has been predictable: "The people of Aurora are in our thoughts and prayers", "We need to come together as a nation and abandon our divisions", and the quite irritating "There is nothing we can do to stop these things from happening (so let's do nothing about it)."

It's true that we cannot do anything to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things, I wrote it myself yesterday on this blog. But, if memory does not fail me, after Oklahoma City we have made it harder for farmers to get fertilizers; and in the wake of 9/11 and then the failed shoe-bomber guy we have made it impossible for 90 year-old ladies to walk through security with their shoes on. So I refuse to accept the common bullshit (let's not call it wisdom, at least) that we cannot do anything to prevent senseless mass murders from happening. Sure, we cannot prevent all of them, so how about we just make it harder?

Someone needs to explain to me how the Second Amendment grants common citizens, and not members of an army, the right to buy and carry AR-15s, AK47s, and other weapons normally reserved for war, not for hunting deer or buffalo. For god's sake: the natives used to kill buffalo with arrows, can't we just shoot deer with a bolt-action rifle?

And someone also needs to explain to me why, in order to defend our family from assault by criminals, we need large-capacity magazines, capable of holding 33 rounds? (And by the way: in 19 years in America I have not encountered one person who was a victim of a home invasion.) These are a couple of the things we can start banning if we want to start making a difference

It is true that we cannot possibly stop a determined killer intent on killing, but why should we make it easy for him to kill as many innocents as possible? Why is it okay for anyone but law enforcement and the military to order 6,000 rounds of ammunition without someone knocking on his door and checking up on him? Because of the Second Amendment? So let's gut the sucker. Since when was the Second Amendment the unchangeable word of God?

And, truly, the Second Amendment and the well-regulated militias thing... Rachel Maddow had a spot-on take down of that logic a few months ago, which I wrote a post about, which you can find here.

If the President, Congress, the two shitty parties we have, and the people of America in general truly want to honor the thousands of people who die from gun violence every year in this nation, not just the Aurora victims, let us all have an honest discussion about how to change the law, and the constitution, to make life harder for criminals and a bit better for so-called "law-abiding" citizens.

And by the way, seems to me James Holmes was a pretty law-abiding citizen to all effects and purposes. Until Friday morning, that is.

Guns Don't Kill People. And Jesus Was Born of A Virgin.

So let's see... Since I have moved to the United States of America, land of the free to own guns but not to demand reasonable gun control, the killings are piling up. In no particular order:

• Virginia Tech: 33 dead, including gunman; 23 injured.
• Columbine High School, Colorado: 15 dead, including 2 gunmen); 21 injured.
• Lancaster County Killings, Pennsylvania, Amish school: 6 dead, including gunman; 5 injured.
• Fort Hood, Texas: 13 dead; 30 injured, including gunman.
• Westroads Malls, Nebraska: 9 dead, including gunman; 4 injured.
• Tucson shooting, Arizona (attempted murder of Congresswoman Giffords): 6 dead; 14 injured (13 gunshot victims).
• Platt Canyon High School, Colorado: 2 dead, including gunman.
• Jonesboro, Arkansas, middle school shooting: 5 dead; 10 injured.
• Tuscaloosa, Alabama, bar shooting: 17 injured.

This is obviously an incomplete list, and it's one that I have compiled from memory. It does not include shootings at postal facilities, fast food restaurants, offices, even churches where multiple victims were killed or injured by a supposedly deranged gunman. If you are interested, here is a list of notable shootings since 2005, compiled by the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence. It is 62 pages long, and not comprehensive.

But that list is just an emotional trick I played on you. Consider instead the following incontrovertible data, courtesy of the aforementioned Brady Campaign:

• Every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15) compared with over 12,000 murders (NCIPC).
• Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States

Get it? The USA is indeed the number one country in the world, when it comes to deaths and injuries by gunshot among Western countries.

Remarkably, every time such events happen, there are many who instinctively retreat against any and all attempts to impose stricter gun controls or bans at the state or federal level. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", goes their mantra. Except, as British comic Eddie Izzard deftly points out, they make it much easier.

Where Are The Red Flags?

I understand that there are reasonable (and constitutional) limits to how much intrusion from law enforcement agencies an individual will tolerate, but I have to wonder:

Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition, along with four guns, online in the weeks leading up to the tragic event that claimed numerous lives and left dozens injured at a movie theater outside Denver. (Source: Huffington Post)

If someone purchases as many bullets as James Holmes did, in just a few weeks, including some 3,000 rounds for an AR-15, and also buys enough body armor to look like a member of the SWAT team without actually being one, shouldn't that raise some red flags that law enforcement should be able to pick up? What about the much-maligned ATF? Is it maligned for good reasons, one has to wonder...

Funkagenda: Word.

This is from one of my favorite DJs, Funkagenda:

"The only countries with higher gun related death percentages than the USA are at war."

In an attempt to reach out to gun-loving Americans, I'll paraphrase the biggest shill and luckiest b-movie actor the world ever saw: "Guns are not the solution, guns are the problem." Let's see if that changes a few minds. I doubt it.

You Can't Defend Against Violent Sociopaths

When James Egan Holmes carried out his deadly, sick, evil plan in a nearby theater early this morning, we were all reminded that there is no defending against those determined to do evil.

I do not know if there is an answer, if there is a way to prevent or minimize the damage that armed sociopaths can do, but I doubt that the answer is to arm ourselves to the teeth. According to reports I heard on local radio, one of the moviegoers was carrying a concealed weapon, was in the theater and failed to respond to Holmes's fire. Even if he had responded with his own gun, what could he have done against a shooter clad in body armor from head to toe, in a dark, smoke-filled theater, surrounded by a frightened crowd?

No amount of bloodshed can convince those who defend Second Amendment rights as the sacred cornerstone of freedom that a big reason why these things happen more in the U.S. than elsewhere is the wide and almost unrestricted availability of people to get armed. When faced with tragedies like last night's, their conditioned response is to advocate for easier availability of weapons, so people can defend themselves against the crazies out there: There is no defending against crazies. You can't stop them, you can't limit them, you can't anticipate them. You can only hope to disarm them. But the cost of disarming them is disarming the rest of "law-abiding citizens", and that--in America--we are not willing to do.

The gaping hole in the "let's-all-get-weapons-to-defend-ourselves" argument is that it does not work. Colorado has very relaxed gun-laws compared to most states, including concealed carry laws, and it has now been the scene of two of the most memorable killing scenes in the last twenty year: last night's in Aurora, and the Columbine shootings. So where are our concealed-carry defenders when you need them?

Another argument is that the Second Amendment guarantees all law-abiding citizens the ability to keep guns, as many as they want, to defend themselves and their families. Aside from the fact that guns kept in one's home are more rarely used in acts of self-defense than in acts of violence, and that there is no proven deterrence value in having a gun in one's home, I have little trouble with allowing people to have guns in their home, to defend themselves against criminals. But then why not agree that you should not be allowed to keep particularly lethal weapons, semi-automatic guns with large magazines, and that need to keep your guns at home, and that if you are stopped outside your home with a gun or guns, without prior permission and justification, your guns can be confiscated and your license can be revoked, forever?

In Italy, where I was born and lived most of my life, people who have guns can only carry them on predefined routes if local law-enforcement is notified in advance and if the gun holder has a legitimate reason; for example, going on a hunting trip, or going from one's shop to the bank 24-hour deposit while carrying large amounts of cash. If a person is found carrying a weapon off an agreed route or outside of permitted hours, their gun-carrying privileges can be revoked. (It is possible, but I am not aware of it, that the law might have changes since I moved to the USA.)

Would such measures stop all gun violence? Hardly; as I already said, I don't think you can stop crazy. But it would definitely draw a crystal clear line between those who are law-abiding citizens and those who are intent on evil-doing, and it might make the job of law enforcement officers easier. (Of course it would require the ability for the police to do random checks, another infringement of individual, constitutional rights that the people might find hard to accept; but is it worth giving it a try?)

For now, my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victims of this senseless act of violence, but this is a discussion to be resumed.

America, The Crazy

If you haven't heard, there was a shooting at an Aurora Movie Theater that I have patronized in the past. Needless to say, it was at the premier of the new Batman, the perfect background for a deranged shooter (who is now in custody, according to newscasts). There is no other civilized country in the world where the reaction to a shooting with multiple killings is that the freaks come out and say that the solution is for all citizens to walk around with weapons. Be prepared for a barrage of right-wing nutjobs to say that gun laws need to be relaxed. (The death toll is at 14 right now, and there were 50 injured, which means that semi-automatic weapons must have been involved. Should we all start walking around with AK-47?)

Majority of American Support Tougher Firearm Restrictions

Via the Huffington Post: Majority Of Americans, Including Gun Owners, Support Tougher Restrictions. In case you didn't read that accurately, the headline says "including gun owners."

Fat chance the NRA will go along with it, which means that the politicians who rely on NRA scorecards to get votes will likely also reject tougher restrictions, which means... You know what it means.

The Gaping Hole In the Second Amendment Rationale

Currently, there is a number of weapons that U.S. citizens are not allowed to own. They include: machine guns; RPG launchers; mortars; cannons; explosive time bombs; anti-tank guns; and, Molotov cocktails. So, you see, Americans already accept restrictions on the types of weapons they are allowed to own.

Most Americans are fine with the above-mentioned limitations, and most Americans also support certain restrictions on their Second Amendment rights to own and bear less sensational and theatrical arms. President Obama, like his predecessor, President Bush, supports a ban on assault weapons. Many members of the House and Senators are in favor of a ban on large capacity (extended) clips, like the one used by Jared Lee Loughner in the January 8th Arizona shootings. Many, but alas not all.

The "not all" camp includes people who regard the Second Amendment as the people's last defense against tyranny. Perhaps in earnest, or perhaps disingenuously and only to protect the interests of gun manufacturers, they say that the Second Amendment grants people unlimited rights, precisely to grant them the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. And so Rachel Maddow takes their argument to its logical conclusion: If you and I should be allowed to bear arms in order to overthrow a tyrannical government, should American citizens be able to own nukes? If not, shouldn't it be in our best interest as a people to limit the power of the weapons the U.S. Armed Fores possess, so as not to be overwhelmed in case of an armed conflict against the government of the United States?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is a point beyond which Second Amendment defenders become simply ridiculous in their obstinate refusal to allow any kind of restriction on the right to own arms, don't you think?

Michael Moore with Rachel Maddow

On tonight's Rachel Maddow Show Michael Moore discusses America's obsession with guns and what measures could be taken to reduce the harm guns do.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Can we retire the "if everyone has guns, no one will need guns" theory now?

Every time there is a mass-murder incident, gun advocates tell us: It would not have happened if everyone had a gun. If an armed law-abiding citizen had been at the scene, they could have fought back and stopped the shooter. I heard this reasoning time and time again: after Virgina Tech, and after the many incidents of multiple shootings in schools and malls around the country. However appealing the theory may be to some, it always sound suspect to me (not to mention a bit crazy. The thought that we should promote the presence of armed teachers, janitors, students, and mall guards is something that only Americans would accept as worth considering.)

Now, after Tucson's shootings, Karoli at Crooks and Liars has this excellent question: "Can we retire the if everyone has guns, no one will need guns theory now?" That is a very good question indeed, reinforced by Karoli's impeccable arguments for it.

As Karoli says, "Arizona is an open carry state. It's not unusual at all for citizens to be carrying their guns, even to the supermarket." Besides, as many have pointed out, Arizona has very relaxed laws about getting and licensing guns. So, if everyone in Arizona can easily obtain and carry guns, how come the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree did not use guns to do so, but their bare hands?

I would suggest that the solution to the firearm violence which plagues the United States more than any developed nation is not going to be solved with more firearms, but with more sanity. The problem is: How do you make, or keep, people sane in a country that thrives on (and rewards) instilling fear in its inhabitants, and that considers health care, particularly mental health care services, a luxury and a privilege instead of a right?

Second Amendment Insanity

It would be nice if, once in a while, heinous acts like yesterday's killings in Arizona were committed by sane right-wing individuals, aided and abetted by proud right-wing radio instigators. Alas, no suck luck.

Right-wing talk show hosts, even those who jokingly condone or blatantly advocate violence against liberals, always deny any involvement in the violent acts of those who take their words without the required grain of salt.

Worse, the perpetrators are never sane individuals. As right-wing hosts are always ready tell us, the perpetrators are always deranged individuals, detached from their surroundings and from the vitriol they would be exposed to if only they were not dangerous schizophrenics with no connection to the external world.

In the right-wing world, where violent rhetoric is inconsequential, where there is no cause and effect relationship between the words of an instigator and the actions of a madman, violence is always inexplicable, surely the result of individual folly.

The problem is that right-wingers think that everyone in the world is sane when it comes to the protection of Second Amendment rights. It is only AFTER those rights have been abused that we find out that the supposedly sane gun owner was in fact an insane perpetrator.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Arizona Shootings

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Second Amendment Remedies Loons

It appears now clear that the shooter in today's spree at a Safeway in Tucson is a loon of the second amendment remedies kind. His My Space and You Tube pages seem to bear that out.

Whether the primary motivation for today's shooting spree is political or not (and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it is), this episode once again calls for a stop to the violent rhetoric employed by the right-wing, no longer just fringe but becoming mainstream day after day.

Think of the calls to second-amendment remedies invoked by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, in the November election. Think about the rhetoric of people like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all of whom demonize their political opponents, often suggesting the very essence and future of America is in jeopardy and that liberals must be stopped at all costs.

The curtain of denial erected by right-wing extremists and endorsed by respectable conservatives (a class seemingly going the way of dinosaurs) must fall.

The anti-intellectualism that many right-wingers boast of leads to ridiculing civil discourse and to the less balanced elements on the right-end of the political spectrum literally thinking that they must take up arms to defend the Constitution (which they do not understand), the nation (against anyone who has a different opinion) and the idea of an America so retrograde as to induce horror in those of a progressive mind. Their ideal of America is so fantastic as to elicit sympathy for those who have conceived it, and so out of touch with the actual past that the likely future invoked by demagogues seems all too real to the extremist wing of the conservative movement. Because, after all, those who know nothing of the real struggles, the real injustices and the real horror of the real past are doomed to repeat it.

Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot In Tucson

Chilling news from Arizona. A gunman shot Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) in the head at a Safeway in Arizona. Ms. Gifford is reportedly still alive and undergoing surgery. It is now also known that a federal judge was also shot and killed during this incident, and several others were injured (18 people, according to the Sheriff's office at a press conference).

A 22 year-old man has been detained for the shooting. The motive is still unclear, but Ms. Gifford's office was vandalized last year hours before the House vote on health care reform, so it is not inconceivable that this might be a politically motivated crime.

Newly-elected Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner said: "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." True, and before the motive is ascertained we all would do well to withhold judgement on this violent act. Still, the Tea-Party and the Republican Party have raised the violent rhetoric in recent years (think of the McCain-Palin rallies of 2008 and of the anti-health care reform rallies last year). Obviously right-wing politicians and activists carry a lot of the blame for the current violent climate, and for episodes such as the killing of Dr. Tiller, death threats to the President, and so forth, no statement to the contrary notwithstanding.