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?
Breaking on Hot Air