Hickenlooper: Tougher gun laws wouldn’t have stopped Aurora shooter

posted at 4:01 pm on July 24, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

The Colorado governor said this on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Sunday but it’s worth flagging a) because the utterly predictable gun-control discussion is ongoing and Hick is another guy with a less-than-utterly-predictable position and b) what are the chances you watched “Face the Nation?”

And, because Hickenlooper’s a Democrat in Colorado, his absolute moral authority shield is engaged:

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb. Who knows where his mind would have gone. Clearly a very intelligent individual however twisted,” Hickenlooper said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The governor, who appeared on at least three Sunday morning talk shows, said his administration “will try to create some checks and balances on these things, but it is an act of evil.”

“If it was not one weapon, it would have been another, and he was diabolical,” he said.

Hooray for common sense, says the WSJ.

I am interested to hear how all these new gun-control proposals are going to stop a Ph.D. student in neuroscience from finding or making whatever he desires to kill a large number of people. I’d bet he’s devious enough to even find a gun in the famously gun-free paradise that is Chicago if he really wanted one.

Those harkening back to the good ol’ days of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban must wrestle with the fact that the law wouldn’t have likely changed Holmes’ artillery much. That’s because Congress outlawed 19 weapons by name plus any semiautomatic gun with a combination of several cosmetic features they found sorta creepy—bayonet mounts, telescoping stocks, pistol grips, etc. As a result, gun manufacturers simply started manufacturing guns with the exact same capacity as the guns the law banned, merely removing the mostly cosmetic features of an “assault weapon.” Holmes could have had one of those guns or any of the guns the law banned, as long as they were manufactured before 1994. He also could have legally bought any number of so-called “high-capacity” magazines, as long as they were produced before 1994.

Fellow North Carolinian Bob Owens, who knows his firearms, has a great piece on the basics of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and its silliness— Part 1 and Part 2, if you’d like to gird yourself for the ideological battle you’ll be doing. It was from Owens that I learned my handgun is a species of highly concealable subcompact gun spawned by Congress’ arbitrary limit of 10 rounds per magazine. So, thanks, I guess? And, for good measure, here’s a thoughtful gun-control advocate lamenting the ban for pretty much the exact same reasons, but using them to advocate for bigger and better gun control.

I know it makes people feel better, particularly liberals and politicians, in the wake of a national tragedy to pass some kind of law or lambast some industry or product. It makes them feel like they’ve done something. But the things liberals want to do to prevent gun violence demonstrably don’t help, and they limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Perhaps a discussion of mental illness and its recognition would be helpful, but making people like me reload every 10 shots at the firing range won’t do it.

Huffington Post says Hick and the Aurora mayor “dodged” the Sunday show questions by focusing on the perpetrator:

Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan, who appeared alongside Hickenlooper on the show, placed the blame on alleged shooter James Holmes as well, rather on the need for stricter gun laws.

Um, yes, because that’s where normal people place the blame. The fact that Hickenlooper, a former mayor of liberal Denver, reacts this way is a sure sign of the politics of this issue in a place like Colorado, where even Democratic voters insist their politicians not go all Bloomberg’s Recipe for Anarchy on them.

Current Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, also a fairly liberal Democrat, gave a speech last week that struck me as another indication of the contrast between an average swing-state audience and national liberal politicians, like the president. Hancock’s state of the city address included this plea for support of a tax hike. And, when I say plea, I mean it, because a Taxpayers Bill of Rights requires Hancock to rebate taxes to his constituents unless otherwise authorized not to at the ballot box. Here he is demonstrating the proper posture of a politician talking to taxpayers—pointing to results and begging for their indulgence:

Denver, we are currently facing another one of those pivotal moments. Throughout this recession, we have aggressively eliminated waste and reduced costs. We’ve worked to sustain our rainy day fund, maintain the highest possible bond rating and keep the City’s budget balanced, closing gaps of nearly $450 million over the past four years.

But with another nearly $100 million shortfall looming next year, we must face reality.

The time has come to deliver for our citizens a long-term, sustainable and smart solution. I will soon submit to the City Council and the people of Denver a balanced plan to fix our budget and get back on track. It’s not smart to rebate money while cutting basic services. We must remove the fiscal handcuffs of TABOR.

By retaining revenue we already collect, just like hundreds of other communities and school districts in Colorado, we can make smart investments in our city. We can hire police officers for the first time in four years. We can repave the quarter of our streets that have not been fixed in two decades. We can restore library hours and create jobs by better supporting Denver businesses.

Compare that to Obama’s version of asking nicely:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Exit question (Allahpundit Trademark): Which Glock do you think George Stephanopoulos owns?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Maybe NOT putting signs up that say “gun free zone” (AKA or earli“victim-rich zone) might have given the perp enough discomfort to not do the attack.

I recall reading last year (?) that some idiotic Democrats in the Illinois state legislature wanted to pass a law that would require gun owners to put a sign in front of their homes stating something to the effect of “Homeowner is a gun owner” as a way of shaming them.

My immediate reaction was “Damn, those Democrats are stupid! Why not pass a law that requires those that do not own guns to put signs in their yards that say: ‘Attention criminals: This is a firearm free home!’?”

If were a burglar and trying to decide which home to break into, I would be very grateful for the Democrats’ warning. lol

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I’ve heard one witness say that he’d ended up on the floor, about 2′ from the assailant’s feet, while the killer was shooting.
If he’d had a weapon, pulled it out while shooter was busy, some very nasty damage could’ve been done (at least) to the dude’s manhood, no ??
Coulda worked !
Jus’ sayin.

pambi on July 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Hey Lefties: cities with the strictest gun control have the highest crime. Concealed carry areas have the lowest. You lose. F*ck off.

rrpjr on July 24, 2012 at 5:50 PM

But let’s not pretend this guy could have done this without these particular kinds of weapons being easily available to him.

verbaluce on July 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Instead lets pretend that those who would do evil are easily dissuaded by more laws.

jdkchem on July 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Flashback c/o MM:

Sunday horror: Church shootings in Colorado; gunman killed by armed female church security staffer; Update: Church volunteer rushed toward the gunman; victims ID’d; Who is the shooter?; Gunman reportedly ID’d; Update: Gunman reportedly “hated Christians;” Update: The hero is Jeanne Assam; Vietnam vet parishioner assisted

The gunman was wearing a tactical helmet and body armor.

New Life Church Pastor Brady Boyd is speaking to the media right now. He reports that the female church security guard rushed toward the gunman in the building when she heard shots ring out. She was stationed at a rotunda. She has a law enforcement background.

“She probably saved a hundred lives.”

They put the security/evacuation plan in place after hearing about the first church attack. Volunteers joined security details. Armed security all have licenses to carry.

Pastor Boyd: “We’re so grateful to God for giving us the wisdom to do that.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/09/sunday-horror-church-shootings-in-colorado-gunman-reportedly-killed-by-armed-female-church-security-staffer/

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Have been reminded of that situation, lately, but had forgotten about the armor ! Thanks.

pambi on July 24, 2012 at 6:09 PM

But let’s not pretend this guy could have done this without these particular kinds of weapons being easily available to him.

verbaluce on July 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And, let’s pretend that we could ban guns and not ever have to worry about them pouring into the country from over the borders or through our ports. After all, we do such a great job of keeping out illegal immigrants and drugs!

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

pambi on July 24, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You’re welcome. :-)

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

There almost zero technical knowledge or skill needed to use these weapons.

verbaluce on July 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

That has to be one of, if not the most, ignorant statements I’ve read. Typical liberal stupid on display.

jdkchem on July 24, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I haven’t culled all the links yet, but from the pictures that so called “body armor” look an awful like just a plain black Nomex jumpsuit.

Which btw, Nomex isn’t bullet-resistant

BlaxPac on July 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM

verbaluce on July 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

A half dozen wine bottles filled with gasoline detergent mix, all wicked properly, ignited, tossed into theater from side door,…then secure exit door shut with juryrigged exterior lock apparatus. This isn’t about the specific tools. Many different types are available for large crowds in small places.

a capella on July 24, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I haven’t culled all the links yet, but from the pictures that so called “body armor” look an awful like just a plain black Nomex jumpsuit.

Which btw, Nomex isn’t bullet-resistant…

BlaxPac on July 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM

But, but, it’s skeery-looking so we have to ban it so that liberals won’t be afraid and will think that they are making a difference!

Like the old “assault weapons” ban, we could call it the Don’t Make Regular Stuff Look Skeery By Cosmetic Changes Act of 2012.

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Nice article Mary Katherine – shows you know more about the topic that Bill O’Reilly.

When I go to the sporting goods store and restock on gunpowder, I have to present valid ID (isn’t that a ‘Jim Crow’ law?) – which is entered in a ledger for the County Sheriff to review.

Yet I can stop by Lowe’s and buy 1,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, pay cash, and the only question asked is “Do you need help carrying that out?”

I can then stop at a junk yard and pick up empty 50 gallon drums, pay cash – no questions asked.

I can then drop by the local gas station and purchase diesel fuel, no questions asked.

A couple of items at the local chemical supply warehouse and guess what I can do.

NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

GarandFan on July 24, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Neither would armed civilians. With that kind of body armor the NRA argument just falls apart.

ernesto on July 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Wasn’t aware that body armor was foolproof.

Del Dolemonte on July 24, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Typical leftist. Doesn’t understand how guns work. Doesn’t understand how body armor works.

Probably thinks nuclear weapons are launched by pushing a little red button on the President’s nightstand.

CurtZHP on July 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

ernesto thinks body armor turns one into a transformer…

chewydog on July 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM

ernesto thinks body armor turns one into a transformer…

chewydog on July 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM

His hero Che slaughtered dozens with a simple machete. Body armor does no good against a machete.

slickwillie2001 on July 24, 2012 at 7:43 PM

What really struck me in what MKH wrote was that bayonet mounts were outlawed. Yet, I’m reasonably sure that no one in America advocates sword control. (There actually is sword control in Japan, but we are talking vastly more dangerous weapons than a bayonet.) But a bayonet mount is going to be much less effective than actual sword. Is this simple lunacy on the gun control people’s behalf or there some logic about it?

thuja on July 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Hickenlooper: Tougher gun laws wouldn’t have stopped Aurora shooter

The Colorado governor said this on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Sunday but it’s worth flagging a) because the utterly predictable gun-control discussion is ongoing and Hick is another guy with a less-than-utterly-predictable position and b) what are the chances you watched “Face the Nation?”

headline and excerpt by Mary Katharine Ham

.
“Face the . . .” what ?

listens2glenn on July 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Isn’t there some question as to whether it was body armor or just a tactical vest? A tac vest that didn’t have plate carrying capapcjty.

tom daschle concerned on July 24, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Hickenlooper: Tougher gun laws wouldn’t have stopped Aurora shooter

headline by Mary Katharine Ham

.
Neither would armed civilians. With that kind of body armor the NRA argument just falls apart. The fact of the matter is that there is NO solution to mass murder – not gun control, and not mass civilian gun ownership. It’s just something we have to live with in this mad, post-modern world.

ernesto on July 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

.
( E X P L E T I V E )

It wouldn’t be that hard to hit the head, and he wasn’t wearing any kind of helmet.

Also, what chewydog said is exactly right.

ernesto, you’re an idiot. You put on “body armor” and let me shoot you with a decent cal. handgun and see if you’re not looking up at the ceiling…

chewydog on July 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Those two bank robbers (North Hollywood, California, 1997) were the most heavily “body-armored” perpetrators I can remember in my lifetime. And in the shootout with LAPD, they still took cover when they could, and were still eventually killed. The impact of those bullets that didn’t penetrate, still knocked the one down who was on foot. Then he’d get up and run again, only to be knocked down again. Until the SWAT got him.

listens2glenn on July 24, 2012 at 9:39 PM

um….for the record….it’s actually the bullets that kill ya.

Any semi-auto is going to fire everytime you pull the trigger regardless of its configuration or caliber.

Whether it looks high-tech and is built with composites, or it’s dad’s old wooden-stock deer rifle…it fires a round everytime you pull the trigger…and anyone who thinks clip-size was a factor in this horror has probably never fired a weapon.

A diabolical freak with a diseased mind shouldn’t (in a rational world) be used as leverage to curtail the constitutional rights of the sane, law-abiding majority.

This argument is, and always has been stupid.

Tim_CA on July 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Great post, MKH.

Funny, while covering a lot of territory.

juliesa on July 24, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Reports are now that Holmes wasn’t wearing body armor after all, or at least his vest wasn’t armor.

juliesa on July 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Isn’t there some question as to whether it was body armor or just a tactical vest? A tac vest that didn’t have plate carrying capapcjty.

tom daschle concerned on July 24, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Here’s what the “Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest” looks like:

http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest

Here’s James Holmes’ sales receipt for the “body armour” vest:

http://www.stltoday.com/tacticalgear-sales-receipt-for-james-holmes/pdf_d886da6e-d2dd-11e1-a574-0019bb30f31a.html

For the record, this is what they are calling “body armour.” You’ll notice the fabric and large opening right down the middle. Of course, it’s not like anyone would aim right at the middle of someone’s chest. /s

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

The democratics’ narrative against concealed carry has been served well by the notion that he was all armored up and practically invincible. For that reason I don’t expect the truth to come out too readily.

slickwillie2001 on July 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM

ernesto thinks body armor turns one into a transformer…

chewydog on July 24, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Um no, the problem is that ernesto doesn’t actually think. He just regurgitates the liberal lines that his mommy read to him last night at story time.

climbnjump on July 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM

But let’s not pretend this guy could have done this without these particular kinds of weapons being easily available to him.

verbaluce

I agree, let’s stop the pretending. This guy could have killed just as many if not more people even if there wasn’t a single gun anywhere on the planet. And it wouldn’t even be that hard.

xblade on July 25, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I am interested to hear how all these new gun-control proposals are going to stop a Ph.D. student in neuroscience from finding or making whatever he desires to kill a large number of people.

The simple answer… it won’t. Norway has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, and a long standing ban on assault weapons, and “high powered” hand guns. That didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from slaughtering 77 people last summer.

HarryBackside on July 25, 2012 at 3:29 AM

But let’s not pretend this guy could have done this without these particular kinds of weapons being easily available to him.

verbaluce

I agree, let’s stop the pretending. This guy could have killed just as many if not more people even if there wasn’t a single gun anywhere on the planet. And it wouldn’t even be that hard.

xblade on July 25, 2012 at 12:44 AM

The first self powered machine gun was built in 1885. The tribal societies living in the mountains of Pakistan, make reverse engineered AK-47′s from scratch. We’re talking 19th century technology. Anyone who is remotely handy can make a homemade automatic firearm, with parts and tools that can be found in their local Home Depot.

HarryBackside on July 25, 2012 at 3:37 AM

For the record, this is what they are calling “body armour.” You’ll notice the fabric and large opening right down the middle. Of course, it’s not like anyone would aim right at the middle of someone’s chest. /s

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

So, basically it was a wearable magazine pouch. But it looks scary and that’s all that matters…to libs.

swinia sutki on July 25, 2012 at 7:03 AM

I know it makes people feel better, particularly liberals and politicians, in the wake of a national tragedy to pass some kind of law or lambast some industry or product. It makes them feel like they’ve done something.

MKH, always keep in mind Jonah Goldberg’s formulation of the ideal government mentality: Don’t just do something, stand there

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

This certainly puts a wet blanket on all those who have said that an armed citizen couldn’t have stopped this because he was armored up!

Oh, and can we PLEASE turn off the stupid auto-refresh on the individual stories/posts?!? Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhh!!!!!

GWB on July 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Neither would armed civilians. With that kind of body armor the NRA argument just falls apart. The fact of the matter is that there is NO solution to mass murder – not gun control, and not mass civilian gun ownership. It’s just something we have to live with in this mad, post-modern world.

ernesto on July 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Only a liberal would think that a vest would protect someone from a headshot only a few feet away.

dominigan on July 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I sat next to a gubernatorial candidate once as I was flying around Florida several years ago, and the topic turned to taxes. I told him that taxpayers needed three things in that regard: 1) Convince us of their necessity, 2) collect them fairly, and 3) spend them wisely. Of those, the first is of the higher importance. Without it the other two smack of tyranny or cronyism.

I cannot say that Mayor Hancock satisfied the above first requirement, but if I were a Denver resident, his arguments make enough sense for me to find out if they are valid, thus opening the door. No responsible citizen opposes all taxes. But we should be jealous keepers of the purse strings, making sure that money collected is necessary, collected fairly, and spent wisely.

NeoCon_1 on July 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2