Hickenlooper and the 2nd amendment

posted at 8:31 am on December 15, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper took a lot of heat from fellow Democrats in the wake of the Aurora shooting tragedy for keeping a cool head and not caving to immediate demands for suppressing Second Amendment rights at a politically opportune moment. At the same time, he earned some additional credentials from conservatives for being a fairly independent minded executive. After the latest dose of mayhem from another maniac, however, the local press seemed to catch him reconsidering his position.

In a significant shift from his statements earlier this year, Gov. John Hickenlooper now says “the time is right” for Colorado lawmakers to consider further gun restrictions.

The Democratic governor made his comments in an interview with The Associated Pressthat comes less than half a year after the mass shooting in an Aurora movie theater that killed 12 and injured at least 58. His latest words also follow a shooting in an Oregon mall Tuesday that left three dead, including the gunman, who shot himself.

“I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but … I think, now … the time is right,” Hickenlooper said in the Wednesday interview.

Actually, I’ve previously maintained that this is precisely the wrong time to leap all over this. It smacks of being an opportunistic approach and capitalizes on the emotions of a grief stricken public to begin tossing out and debating gun grabbing arguments right now. But that genie is clearly out of the bottle and interesting facts are already emerging. As with previous tragedies, the sad patterns we’ve seen before are playing out yet again. The guns used by the maniac in question were legally purchased by his mother - one of the victims of the shooting – and taken without her consent. The shooter was a legal adult, apparently having no significant criminal record which would have warranted blocking his access in any event. The family seems to have had more than their share of trouble and turmoil, but that can be said of far too many families in America. Some are also reporting that the young man had a history of “mental problems” which you can also find in every corner of the nation. Friends are describing him as, “quiet and not very social,” but not giving any indication that he might be prone to violence. Unless more details prove otherwise, this was, in short, the almost completely unpredictable result of the actions of an evil madman who had given no actionable signals before his horrific assault.

Let’s stop and think for a moment about how the shooter got these guns. He took them from someone else who legally obtained them. He stole those guns. And this, of course, demonstrates yet again that those who are willing to employ guns to engage in violence aren’t going to pause and think about whether or not they should commit a robbery along the way. To stop an action like that which we witnessed yesterday you would have to eliminate the existence of guns, and we’ve all seen the figures on how well that works.

And let’s not forget that Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

So is Hickenlooper caving to the pressures of the far left wing of his party? That’s not clear yet.

Reached while traveling Thursday, the governor told The Denver Post, “I don’t think I flip-flopped at all. The AP was asking, ‘Should we have that discussion (about gun restrictions)?’ I said, ‘Sure. This is not a discussion that a free, open society should be afraid of,’ ” he said.

In that respect perhaps the Governor is right, at least in terms of the timing of the conversation. Generally, conservatives urge calm and quiet after one of these random acts of domestic violence and mayhem, preferring time for empathy and prayers for the victims and those affected by the tragedy. Conversely, gun grabbers seize the moment for their own devices. (In case you missed it, Allahpundit’s Quotes of the Day last night contains a robust roundup of what the grabbers in question are saying already.) These events shouldn’t be a reason for people to shy away from defending their own freedoms, while still maintaining the proper respect and empathy for those lost. And in a free nation, we can have this type of debate, no matter how painful the circumstances.

Would it be nice to wait until the bodies were laid to rest and the tears of the mourning were dry? No doubt. But the debate will happen either way. And we shouldn’t be too quick to judge Hickenlooper in this. The real message will be delivered when we see what sort of legislation is proposed in his state in the weeks and months to come and how he responds. We should be willing to allow his actions to speak louder than his words as we continue to pray for the fallen.


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 3

Neither guns or any other inanimate objects are to blame for this tragedy. The blame falls squarely on the mores and behavior of this sick society and its inability and reluctance to identify people like this then take action to restrain or change them. Even now they are reporting the killer was a “troubled youth” . . . sorry, too late, now go stick your head back up your backside and blame it on the guns. All of the anti-gun fanatics need to stop their mindless ranting about guns and see if they can muster up the brain cells to identify the real problems and stop this social insanity.

rplat on December 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

He’s feeling emboldened after the last election. The Colorado theater shooting happened at a time when it looked like the 2012 election might resemble the 2010 election.

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 8:38 AM

The government is driving us toward instability.

They’ve made promises to people that cannot be kept. People are relying on those promises; organzing their lives based on those promises. There will be violence in the streets when our economic system begins to fail. And fail it will: the crushing debt combined with an undiscipled people who refuse to change and retrench, we will not correct our course.

We will need those guns when society begins to breakdown due to the economic disaster that’s ahead of us. (not talking about the self-made ‘fiscal cliff’, taking about the crushing debt and ballooning entitlements).

LilyBart on December 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Someone has to publicly ask that all public figures who swore an oath of office but push for gun control be relieved of their respective duties immediately, and continue their struggle as private citizens. Openly opposing the Constitution while sworn to uphold it is tantamount to sedition.

Archivarix on December 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Oh yeah. We really need yet another law, but for what ?

Gun control ? Seems the mother bought the guns, besides when you have
an ATF and DOJ that illegally allows guns to flow to Mexico to kill
reportedly hundreds, who needs gun laws ?

We now have such a myriad of laws that it inspired a book, “Three
Felonies a Day”. The author claims that the average American commits,
on average, 3 felonies a day.

But when our POTUS decides to ignore laws, like our immigration laws,
why can’t everybody else just ignore a few .. and maybe go shoot up a
school or church. Seems “fair” to me.

I propose a sunset of 12 years on all laws, when they will have to be
reauthorized. This should keep Congress so busy that they won’t have
time to do much spending.

J_Crater on December 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

gun control laws won’t protect a society that is decaying and stagnating and where political comity collapses every minute of the day.

rob verdi on December 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Three trigger locks, or a gun safe, would have prevented this tragedy. The person responsible for the security of the weapons used died first. And no one is ever going to convince me that she, or other family members, were not aware of Adam Lanza’s dangerous mental instability.

And even if we stop all the unstable Adam Lanza types by taking the handguns and higher-capacity long guns from law-abiding citizens, there will not be a measurable drop in gun deaths in this country. These in incidents are the equivalent, in newsworthy terms, of “the missing blonde girl”. The only difference being, the mob thinks it can do something with this Natalee Holloway; they think indignation can be channeled into righteous action with no real effort on the part of the individual, and at no cost.

The problem with this thinking is that in our cities the same number as usual of black children will still be dead on each Monday morning. This is because the instruments of their deaths, guns, will arrive in our borders around the clock with the unabated flow of illegal narcotics.

I think I’ll keep my weapons.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This Amendment was written by our forefathers to protect Americans from not only foreign enemies and despots, but, internal ones, as well.

And, that is what makes Liberals nervous.

kingsjester on December 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently?

Repeating firearms have existed for over 160 years – the Colt revolver for example.

Why didn’t those kinds of massacres didn’t occur 150… 120.. 100 years ago?

Why these tragedies didn’t occur back when select fire – fully automatic weaponry were easily available?

Why do these most of tragedies take place in “Gun-Free” zones where people are denied the right of self-defense?

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Actually, based on the facts of this massacre, it would appear that “the time is right” for lawmakers across America to consider further restrictions on the mentally ill.

Pork-Chop on December 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Make your own Gun Free Zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8&feature=player_detailpage

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Maybe we shouldn’t blame the Second Amendment for things like this, but the First. In today’s sick society, First Amendmentwise, anything goes. Maybe the hollywood libruls should stop chasing the dollar at any cost to our society, and tone it down a bit. The lib/socialists have engendered a school system, the purpose of which is to create a country of dummed down followers. Put these two together and you get easily manipulated, adult challenged, young people that see on the movie screen that this is the way to solve their problems.

The lib talking heads also talk about gun violence. How much of that is really spread among the population, and how much is concentrated in the inner cities and towns, and among people whose command of understandable English language is so limited it is difficult for them to hold a job. The most popular music today, rap, is all about killing people.

Old Country Boy on December 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM

The “never let a crisis go to waste crowd” is already out there. As tragic as this is, the people who try to exploit this for something that they want, like Bloomberg, are just disgusting.

What our sycophant media will not be pushing is the number one number of killings in a school, in the U.S., was committed by a bomber not a gunman. Do they really believe they’ll stop evil people from committing evil deeds by banning guns. If there was one person in that school that had a concealed carry permit they might have been able to prevent some of those murders. Secondly, if he had a bomb strapped to him, he could have easily killed more.

I hope we start to look down on people like Bloomberg, with disdain, for trying to exploit incidents like this.

bflat879 on December 15, 2012 at 8:57 AM

If but one teacher or administrator at that school had been legally carrying a sidearm, been trained to use it effectively and had the guts to do so, one can imagine that far fewer deaths would have occurred at the hands of an evil nutjob using a gun to murder children and adults.
.
If there had been several teachers or administrators at that school who had been legally equipped with a firearm and emotionally equipped to use it in the situation at hand, the nutjob evil perpetrator might not have tried his deadly rampage against unarmed innocents, at all.
.
It’s OK to be emotional about what has happened. It’s not OK to be emotional about disarming citizens in the face of yet another tragedy where “guns” are substituted for “evil, emotionally unbalanced human being.”
.
When seconds count, the police are but moments away.

ExpressoBold on December 15, 2012 at 8:57 AM

It smacks of being an opportunistic approach and capitalizes

Curious terminology that… Leftists acting according to natural laws of opportunity that they so despise to reduce the rights (capital) of others…

Isn’t it interesting that it’s not the violence or crass attitudes of our shared populace cultural media … anyone seen “Killing them Softly”? The run up press for “Django Unchained”? (“I get to kill all the white people, how whack is that?”)

No no… it’s guns and it’s time to have a “conversation”.

A diseased cultural society caused by the progressives… but we can’t blame progressive ideology which preaches an anything goes attitude… the solution is MORE progressive ideology which means MORE control of the populace…

Welcome to the United States of Social Utopianism…

Skywise on December 15, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I keep coming back to why did the mom have 2 handguns and the rifle? She was divorced and retired from teaching and was taking care of a child with mental problems. I have 3 hand guns but I have a need to carry one. We live in the wilds and need protection from predators at times. What did she need protection from, the son? If he was that far off, why not institutionalize him.

Kissmygrits on December 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

One other comment –
According to the news this morning, the Principle of the school ran toward the shooter to stop him as he broke in.

He shot and killed her immediately.

They called her a hero, akin to a Navy Seal running into the heart of danger.

Would that she had been armed we’d be talking about something else this morning?

Anybody remember the one school shooting where the teacher ran out to his car and got his gun? (Of course not, the shooter was stopped quickly…)

No no… guns are bad, mmm’kay and the solution, now, is more metal detectors in school, reinforced metal doors at the entrances and treating schools like federal prisons where the “gloriously educated students” are locked in for their own safety.

We already live in a police state where we’re all trained to be sheep and the rams are left unarmed.

Skywise on December 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Aren’t most, if not all of these instances, perpetrated by a young person? It would seem that there should be a lot more soul searching about what society and his family contributed to this horror than blaming the inanimate object.

Vince on December 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

If you have someone in your household whom you think may be mentally unstable, the correct answer is to have your firearms in a gun safe.

rbj on December 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

If there had been several teachers or administrators at that school who had been legally equipped with a firearm and emotionally equipped to use it in the situation at hand, the nutjob evil perpetrator might not have tried his deadly rampage against unarmed innocents, at all.

Just the thought that there might be someone carrying at the school might have deterred the coward.

Vince on December 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

This country needs to have the REAL dialogue……but everyone is scared to have it.
The majority of killers are Males. The majority of crimes involving firearms are committed by Males.
But all politicians ( who are majority of men ) keep missing this point. They selectively target the objects ( guns ), instead of addressing the shooters ( males ).

centre on December 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Not that the governor is right, but he actually said this and brought this up before the Connecticut shooting a day or two prior.

tommer74 on December 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM

A slight correction to the ole Will Rogers saying.

Buy guns. They ain’t making any more of the stuff.

Bmore on December 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Jazz, don’t confuse election pandering with good faith.

Hickenloooper is a far left loon on all social issues, including gun rights.

Norwegian on December 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Have your guns in a gun safe. Period.

Bmore on December 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Some one should notify Hickenlooper that the James Holmes not only broke several gun laws he also smoked cannabis illegally….Oh wait.

Caper29 on December 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

This country needs to have the REAL dialogue……but everyone is scared to have it.
The majority of killers are Males. The majority of crimes involving firearms are committed by Males.
But all politicians ( who are majority of men ) keep missing this point. They selectively target the objects ( guns ), instead of addressing the shooters ( males ).

centre on December 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Clearly the time has come to outlaw men.

Jazz Shaw on December 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Column: Gun-free zones provide false sense of security
Killers aren’t stopped by these policies.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

Plenty of people — especially among America’s political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They’d be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn’t work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there’s someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Terrorists Target Israeli Students
Armed with guns and knives, the terrorists managed to stab several students before armed school counselors arrived and shot them dead.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/310078.aspx

Why aren’t our teachers allowed to be armed? Imagine if the principle, office workers and/or the janitor had a weapon? Why weren’t they armed? Why did school employees call 911? Why?
Why? because the cops had cars? Because the cops carry pencils? Because the cops have badges? No… because the cops carry guns! So none of the teachers or staff carry guns to defend themselves in the event of a madman… but the first thing they do when one shows up is call people who do? Why not minimize the risk to begin with and just allow armed people on the school grounds!

Isn’t this simple logic? Common sense?
Will the Secret Service give up it’s guns? Why do they have them? Why don’t they just rely on 911?

Oh wait.. but then the cops have guns too. But why? Do the guns the cops carry cause crime and murder?

I noticed that a lot of cops were carrying guns at that shooting yesterday. Why? What were they going to do with those guns? What was their purpose?

This shooting was horrific. Pure evil. But my sympathies and sorrow and rage all stop when because of this horrific shooting… someone wants to use it to disarm me so that I cannot protect myself and my family or my neighbors from another possible future similar horrific shooting.

Because children died at the hands of a wolf does not mean I should be disarmed so that my children can also die at the hands of some other wolf.

Those people in that community and the government over them made that school and the state it was in a gun free zone. They created the circumstances where those victims were as sheep to be slaughtered.
The answer to this is not to make all of us as sheep to be slaughtered.

JellyToast on December 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

The first handgun I was able to identify visually was the Browning Hi-Power. It is a “single action” semi-automatic originally chambered only in nine millimeter parabellum. I became familiar with it because the principal of my elementary school kept one out in the open on a shelf beside his desk. I was directed to the principal’s office more than once in my time in school …oh, well …

Yes, this was forty-some years ago, times change, and I suspect he kept the weapon as a precaution against a specific threat, i.e. a known nutter in the community. But, it leaves me mystified and bemused why, in a world seemingly shrinking in the bath of instant news, with every incident such as this known around the planet in minutes, why adults delude themselves that they can somehow create a pacifistic utopia.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM

The greatest mass murders in history were committed by governments. How many of these ghouls are calling for control of them? None. In fact, they are advocating for more government and a disarming of the citizenry.

RadClown on December 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This Amendment was written by our forefathers to protect Americans from not only foreign enemies and despots, but, internal ones, as well.

And, that is what makes Liberals nervous.

kingsjester on December 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I will add this VERY important point…the 2nd Amendment did not grant the right of citizens to keep and bear arms but rather prevents government from infringing on those God given rights. Government can not grant “rights”.

Shall not be infringed means exactly that.

trs on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Norway has a population of 5 million people, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

Google Anders Breivik.

The US has a population of 315 million, and there are about 270 million guns in 3 million square miles.

Some questions I have:

Would gun bans make gun crime disappear just like murder bans made murder disapper and drug bans made meth disappear?

How many children have been killed or had their lives ruined by illegal drugs? Should we not wait until drug laws are working before we discuss gun laws? Why introduce new laws that will fail when our existing laws don’t work?

How would gun laws actually work? Would the government be able to find all 270 million guns and take them all away, when it can’t even prevent its own agents from funnelling thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels? It’s the largest government in the world. How much larger would it have to be to enforce the gun laws in a fashion that didn’t amount to just disarming those least likely to use guns to commit crimes, who also happen to be those most likely to use guns to stop crime, leaving violent criminals as the only civilians who own guns?

How did the gun ban in Chicago work out? Did it reduce gun violence? Most of those guns are possessed illegally. Why did the criminals use them even though they were illegal? Does banning guns make them disappear? Where do they go?

Why do massacres happen in “gun-free zones” like schools, shopping malls, and military bases (where on-base carrying of guns is prohibited)? Why don’t they happen at shooting ranges, Cabela’s and Bass Pro where there are plenty of guns and ammunition and people who know how to use them?

Why does violent crime drop in states that introduce concealed carry? Why is it lower, per capita, in places that permit carrying guns in public places than it is in places that don’t?

Gun laws are a non-sequitur. μολὼν λαβέ

mr.blacksheep on December 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

the school is a gun-free zone, that to me says a lot.

some bald-headed security guy was on Fox and Friends, says we need to strengthen the buildings – like a prison, I assume. But that’s idiotic: soccer games, slip into Christmas concert, when school lets out, etc. etc. Does he really think a reinforced school will prevent killings ?????

williampeck1958 on December 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM

What law would have been able to stop what happened, other than a complete ban on all firearms?

ButterflyDragon on December 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy. – Rupert Murdoch

https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/279759365328732161

Glad to see FOX NEWS is now on board. Bastards.

Mr. Arrogant on December 15, 2012 at 9:41 AM

All of the anti-gun fanatics need to stop their mindless ranting about guns and see if they can muster up the brain cells to identify the real problems and stop this social insanity.

rplat on December 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

So you’re suggesting that Americans are by nature more homicidal than people in other countries, where firearm homicide rates pale in comparison to the US? I find that hard to believe.

A well regulated Militia…

Shall not be infringed means exactly that.

trs on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The founders could not have been more explicit in recognizing the government’s right to regulate while guaranteeing either the right to gun ownership or the right of armed militias to exist, depending upon how the amendment is interpreted.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

The Constitution was meant to be a constraint on the government by the People, not the other way around.

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM

the school is a gun-free zone, that to me says a lot.

It should force you to return to that old favorite- guns aren’t the problem, they’re the solution.
Why wasn’t this school giving first graders gun training so that by 4th grade every student was armed? It could have been avoided, and so easily.

Why does violent crime drop in states that introduce concealed carry? Why is it lower, per capita, in places that permit carrying guns in public places than it is in places that don’t?

And it’s by far the lowest in countries where gun ownership is heavily regulated. The US doesn’t need to become a mirror of the Middle East and its culture of a heavily armed population in order to ensure public safety.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/

WOULD BE TYRANTS want our guns!!!

There is no greater threat to them than an ARMED CITIZENRY.

Hickenlooper and those like him need to read what the founders had to say about the subject.

King George III would proudly be a Pro-Gun control Progressive today.

PappyD61 on December 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The founders could not have been more explicit in recognizing the government’s right to regulate while guaranteeing either the right to gun ownership or the right of armed militias to exist, depending upon how the amendment is interpreted.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Canadian Flukewad says what?

If you want to see your fellow Canadians disarmed, and never able to protect themselves against tyranny, keep it in Canada. But our rights, and the reasons for their existence, really have nothing to do with you. Why exactly do you feel compelled to stick your nose into the liberties of those of a different nation? Is it impossible for you to control your dictatorial impulses?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM

rplat on December 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Pork-Chop on December 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The common connection… one has to be judgmental, something liberals have railed against for decades. [ We can't judge... ]

This is the lynch-pin (IMO) that’s been demonized and abandoned by general society.

Kissmygrits on December 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Activists and ‘do-gooders’ nailed that door shut 40-50 years ago. For good or ill, you getting someone (long-term) institutionalized isn’t as easy as it once was. (The ‘state’ putting you away if they don’t like you is another matter…)

Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The difference… an emphasis on a ‘moral society’. Moral conduct, personal honor, and personal responsibility… and a common, negative societal reaction for anyone who showed open contempt, or disregard, for what was considered proper (public & personal) conduct.

AND… firm (and sometimes ‘final’) responses for violent & predatory behavior.

CPT. Charles on December 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Guns don’t cause thesee tragedies, ..The media do.

EVer since Klebod and Harris become kitchen-table names because
you literally couldn’t open a paper, turn on a telvision or radio without seeing their faces…sick kids have figured out how to get their 15 minutes.

Hell…You can take this all the way back to Dillinger being the hero of every kid that was old enough to read a paper in 1933.

We’re talking abou the wrong amendment here…once again we let the left frame the argument, and incorrectly…to suit their purpose.

By Terril Yue JonesReuters
1:48 a.m. EST, December 14, 2012

BEIJING (Reuters) – A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.
The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.

There have been a series of attacks on schools and schoolchildren around China in recent years, some by people who have lost their jobs or felt left out of the country’s economic boom.

The rash of violence has prompted public calls for more measures to protect the young in a country where many couples only have one child.

In 2010, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.

(Editing by Jonathan Standing)

Copyright © 2012, Reuters

Guess we don’t see this piece in the US MSM, because frankly, it flies in the face of their “Guns need to be removed from citizen’s hands and strictly controlled by the Federal Government” argument.

The media killed those children…and they are killing more right now, every second, with every “breaking news” story that promotes this behavior whether in a positive light or not.

a5minmajor on December 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Here’s a thought for the MSM – the one’s who bleat the most. These mass shootings appear to occur because marginal people want to go out in a blaze of glory….making their names a household word.

Let’s pass a law forbidding the press to publish the names and photos of individuals involved in such crimes. Violation of this law would apply to the reporter, his editor and the publisher with a 20 year mandatory prison sentence for each, and seizure of their business.

What? What’s that? 1st Amendment rights? Since when were we concerned about rights?

GarandFan on December 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I absolutely loathe progressive liberal stupidity. And John Kerry will be the SecState? Good God Almighty!

ultracon on December 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy. – Rupert Murdoch

I bet the only ones there with automatic weapons were the cops.

Maybe we should make it a crime to smuggle weapons into Mexico.

Yeah, isn’t that surreal. The administration that was caught smuggling high powered weapons into Mexico(against the wishes of the gun shops) to drug lords… guns that were used in multiple crimes and resulted in at least the death of one American.. a law enforcement officer.. yeah.. that same administration is now out there publicly crying tears over this shooting and promising bold action against? Guns?

What a freaking joke!

Just another example of a lost opportunity Romney had. Why oh why he never touched on Fast and Furious was beyond me!
Just so proves.. the Democrats are winning by default!

JellyToast on December 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

If you really really want to stop mass murder of innocents…….BAN DICTATORS AND TYRANTS that want to take your rights to own a gun.

EVERY single lying politician calling for taking away our guns…….has ARMED SECURITY.

Nadler, Hickenlooper, Bloomberg……why do you deny schools the same armed security that you enjoy?

TURN IT BACK ON THEM.

PappyD61 on December 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

…how come these shootings seem to always occur in areas that have been run by liberals with their gun free zones?

KOOLAID2 on December 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Let’s take a long look at how we deal with mental health issues in this country. Liberals have made excuses for every mental nutcase and blame guns instead. Total bull.

tyketto on December 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Where are our GOP Reps. who’ll defend our rights and declare:

“We’re sick and tired of democrat ghouls who’ll stand on the bodies of children to push their anti-Constitutional agenda on American citizens who had nothing to do with the horrible acts perpetrated by other ghouls.”

I will not forfeit my right to defend the lives of my two boys against sickos like this kid in CT. If we’re going to look for faux-causes in all this, then how about we point to the fact that all this violence happens at the hands of people who went through the Public Education System. Hmmmm.? That makes about as much sense as blaming guns. We need to have a serious discussion on why our system of public education is producing murderers. Maybe we should ban public education in favor of private school. After all, we’re looking to blame inanimate things, right? Like guns? Well, why not “systems”?

Weight of Glory on December 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Just another example of a lost opportunity Romney had. Why oh why he never touched on Fast and Furious was beyond me!
Just so proves.. the Democrats are winning by default!

JellyToast on December 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Soon they will have FNC fully on their side as well. Mark my words, we’ll see O’Reilly, Hannity, et al change their tune and start calling for a gun ban…if they haven’t already.

Mr. Arrogant on December 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

…how come these shootings seem to always occur in areas that have been run by liberals with their gun free zones?

KOOLAID2 on December 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

And they probably post in large block letters all over the place an area is a gun-free zone because potential killers surely see those signs and turn around since they are armed.

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You won’t take our firearms. Might as well stop discussing it.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The founders could not have been more explicit in recognizing the government’s right to regulate while guaranteeing either the right to gun ownership or the right of armed militias to exist, depending upon how the amendment is interpreted.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Well then, its a good thing we have a SCOTUS that has interpreted it. And they came down on the side of the former, which is a necessry precondition for the latter.

It was in all the papers. Perhaps you missed it?

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Think this terrible incident is bad? It is, think about what law would have prevented it? Not much, not even a total ban.

Think strict gun control is the answer? You mean like in New Jersey and Connecticut?

Think our second amendment is a bad thing? Think..Syria.

Speakup on December 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Why exactly do you feel compelled to stick your nose into the liberties of those of a different nation? Is it impossible for you to control your dictatorial impulses?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Hear, hear. A better comment on this site has not been made.

So tired of liberals from other countries trying to form our policy and laws for us.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You won’t take our firearms. Might as well stop discussing it.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Not many people want to take away your little toys and sense of power, only the far left dreams of a gun free America. Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

And it’s by far the lowest in countries where gun ownership is heavily regulated.
bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Like Mexico?

The genie is out of the bottle, and laws, however well intended, won’t put it back in.

Let’s assume we “heavily regulate” guns (which we do already, BTW). Where do all the guns go? Given our government’s track record, many of the most deadly would go to drug cartels in Mexico.

Who would be left with guns? Criminals? Is that good? Was the Connecticut shooter a criminal or a law-abiding citizen? By definition, he was a criminal, but that fact didn’t stop him from doing what he did.

I might have been persuaded had Chicago seen a sharp drop in gun violence while guns were banned there. It didn’t.

I might have been persuaded had gun crime gone up in states that recently liberalized concealed carry. It didn’t — it went down.

I might be persuaded if gun-law advocates could explain how they would actually work, but they can’t. They never seem to be able to show how, in practice, it won’t actually be the case that people with the highest propensity for gun violence to be left with the guns, and the people with the highest propensity to use guns to stop crimes will be left unarmed.

Calls for a “gun ban” are an emotional, yet irrational, reaction to a terrible tragedy. A gun ban wold make the situation worse, not better. The evidence is there. Open your eyes.

mr.blacksheep on December 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Why exactly do you feel compelled to stick your nose into the liberties of those of a different nation? Is it impossible for you to control your dictatorial impulses?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Hear, hear. A better comment on this site has not been made.

So tired of liberals from other countries trying to form our policy and laws for us.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Then don’t forget that Fox News is a foreign corporation headed by a foreigner with political views that matured in a country on the other side of the globe and largely removed US culture, tradition, and values.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Then don’t forget that Fox News is a foreign corporation headed by a foreigner with political views that matured in a country on the other side of the globe and largely removed US culture, tradition, and values.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Relevance to anything?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Sensible regulation… of semi-automatic handguns?

Something tells me that CT has pretty strict regulation of such weapons (especially considering how many of them are actually made in CT). Didn’t seem to cause the perp too much concern…

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Not many people want to take away your little toys and sense of power, only the far left dreams of a gun free America. Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

…there’s sensible regulations now…how’s it working?…just chew your hay!

KOOLAID2 on December 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Relevance to anything?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

…it has a diet of hay and oats…and other grains.

KOOLAID2 on December 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Not many people want to take away your little toys and sense of power, only the far left dreams of a gun free America. Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Uh huh, you’re one of them. Anyone who refers condescendingly to guns as “your little toys” has a bias that’s as glaring as the sun on a clear day.

Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

KOOLAID2 on December 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

These gun grabbing dilholes are never capable of being honest. I want to hear what a “sensible” gun law is. There are 200 million+ voting age people in this country and the word sensible means something different to every single one of them. These dilholes know that, so we get stupid speak like “sensible” because they know they can get away with their gun grabbing ways by obfuscating their intentions.

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

where firearm homicide rates pale in comparison to the US?

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You probably already know this, but when you look at per capita homicide rates this argument disappears. In the U.S. guns are used used to commit homicides, in other countries, they use other weapons.

STL_Vet on December 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Which of these signs will prevent another tragedy?
http://i46.tinypic.com/33duond.jpg

Southern by choice22 on December 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Then don’t forget that Fox News is a foreign corporation headed by a foreigner with political views that matured in a country on the other side of the globe and largely removed US culture, tradition, and values.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Your comment made no sense. What does it have to what we were talking about?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Uh huh, you’re one of them. Anyone who refers condescendingly to guns as “your little toys” has a bias that’s as glaring as the sun on a clear day.

Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Well said.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

‘We’ll Be At Your Daughter’s Soccer Game!’
Union protest speaker tells governor that union members will ‘visit you’ everywhere over right-to-work bill

If people are looking for signs of potentially violent behavioral traits, shouldn’t these people be at the head of the list?

They, and liberal activists and leftists, have a well established history of striking out. Shouldn’t they have psychological evaluations to get to the root of their antisocial behavior?
Are we going to ignore them until they strike out again??

Mimzey on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Calls for a “gun ban” are an emotional, yet irrational, reaction to a terrible tragedy. A gun ban wold make the situation worse, not better. The evidence is there. Open your eyes.

mr.blacksheep on December 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Once again, the shooter wasn’t a gang member or past criminal with easy access to exotic weapons. Only a semi-automatic weapon would have prevented someone from tackling him between shots. And this is the type of weapon usually identified as a target of better regulation.

A general ban gun in a single city (such as Chicago) will not quickly or consistently reduce the rate of gun violence. Other factors are generally more important. You need to understand that local law enforcement often favors such bans in order to give it more options for arresting and prosecuting gang members, not because cops believe that gun violence will just go away.

The only irrational argument is to claim that societies with higher rates of gun ownership are safer.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I didn’t read the linked story, but from the excerpts I have no problem with Hickenlooper, yet. Who knows, maybe Hickenlooper is just afraid to say the obvious. I have no problem with a discussion of gun control and am more than willing to say it.

We need more gun control, but not new blanket government gun control restrictions. There ought to be more government gun control allowances (or mandates) and we ought to reexamine government policy on gun-free zones, at least where government is responsible, ie, public property such as schools.

School security systems ought to have provision for someone, or a few people, in control of a firearm in the school as a last line of defense with preplanned and rehearsed scenarios tested for efficacy for situations like this. Not having a provision for ensuring safety that takes possible events like this into account, even if not 100% effective, is clearly and simply negligence. To argue otherwise is an evasion of responsibility and a dereliction of duty by those in authority. Those holding to it ought to be fired immediately and replaced with someone that recognizes the possibility of needing a firearm within reach to prevent these atrocities from happening because, obviously, they happen.

So, bring on the discussion. I’m hankering to pester those spouting inane bromides about gun control, with questions about how their sorely lacking specific proposals will stop these events from happening.

Dusty on December 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Culture of violence.

a capella on December 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

In your self appointed capacity as a professional gun grabber which one of the following two weapons should be banned as a super “dangerous” sem-auto kill machine.

http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/3091778_winchester_01?hei=380&wid=380

http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_290797_443_01?hei=110&wid=380

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

A general ban gun in a single city (such as Chicago) will not quickly or consistently reduce the rate of gun violence. Other factors are generally more important. You need to understand that local law enforcement often favors such bans in order to give it more options for arresting and prosecuting gang members, not because cops believe that gun violence will just go away.

First, he broke all of the “sensible” regulations. He was under 21, in a school zone, didn’t have a carry permit, etc etc. If you wish to use the incident to argue for more gun laws, you would do well to use the facts of this case to make an cogent argument.

Second, the Chicago gangs are already breaking the existing Chicago gun laws. These kids are either under age, have records, or are using banned weapons. I don’t know know from what liberal web site you’re getting your talking points, but you should find a new one.

STL_Vet on December 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

… The only irrational argument is to claim that societies with higher rates of gun ownership are safer.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Switzerland.

The only irrational argument is to argue from a position that refuses to acknowledge, let alone discuss, that minus a certain demographic component of our population, United States gun homicide rates would compare nicely with any other western nation.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Only a semi-automatic weapon would have prevented someone from tackling him between shots. And this is the type of weapon usually identified as a target of better regulation.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Heh. A 6 shot revolver is semi-automatic. Looks like you’re limiting handguns to singleshot. Oh, well,…..:)

a capella on December 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Heh. A 6 shot revolver is semi-automatic. Looks like you’re limiting handguns to singleshot. Oh, well,…..:)

a capella on December 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

He has no idea what the Fluke he is talking about. He is just parroting the latest cool kid talking points. Semi-auto is currently the cool kid word of the day.

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Only a semi-automatic weapon would have prevented someone from tackling him between shots. And this is the type of weapon usually identified as a target of better regulation.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Uh-huh.

This, is a hero right here. He is sure he can walk/run up to a shooter and disarm him because … he’s using a revolver and not a magazine fed weapon.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The only irrational argument is to claim that societies with higher rates of gun ownership are safer.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

What does that even mean?
You change the subject from a Constitutional right to own guns to some vague level of “safety”.
What is your idea of a balance between rights and “safety”?
Only in Utopia an Heaven are all people “safe”.

Mimzey on December 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

First, he broke all of the “sensible” regulations. He was under 21, in a school zone, didn’t have a carry permit, etc etc. If you wish to use the incident to argue for more gun laws, you would do well to use the facts of this case to make an cogent argument.

What ‘facts of the case’ are you suggesting I overlooked?

Facts of this case are more the clear- the type of semi-automatic weapons that made this mass murder easy to carry out are not only legal but so prevalent that even a suburban nerd can easily access one.

Perhaps the real issue is that some gun owners simply can’t imagine restricted access to the most exciting weaponry. Even if the social cost is a lot of innocent people killed by deranged shooters from non-criminal backgrounds- shooters without the know how to obtain banned weapons.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Only a semi-automatic weapon would have prevented someone from tackling him between shots. And this is the type of weapon usually identified as a target of better regulation.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Practice that against a pump action shotgun and let us know how well you do.

Dusty on December 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM

we need to make murder illegal. we can specifically call for laws that make murder by a handgun twice as tough. murder gets life. murder by a handgun gets a double life sentence. once murder becomes illegal then we can start with making drugs like heroin and cocaine illegal. that should do it.

badswing on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

There are over 200 million privately owned guns in the US. This is not counting the firearms in the service, police forces, etc.
Excluding the number of gun deaths that are a result of criminal enforcement actions and those of personal self defense, accidents, etc, how many guns deaths are there that would justify the stripping of ones rights.

200+ million guns.
312 million people.
how many unjustified deaths from firearms?

Liberals never seem to miss an opportunity to use a tragedy to push their politics.

Mimzey on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

This, is a hero right here. He is sure he can walk/run up to a shooter and disarm him because … he’s using a revolver and not a magazine fed weapon.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Look at the weapons employed in past shootings and the difference in fatality numbers when the weapon is a handgun.
The only time you see a higher death toll is when the attacker combines a handgun with other weapons, such as bomb.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Not many people want to take away your little toys and sense of power, only the far left dreams of a gun free America. Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Toys? Then why all the righteous huff and fluff about such meaningless trifles?

oh wait… you’re afraid of your suburban nut job… so they’re NOT toys are they?

You can’t belittle the very item which is the epitome of true power (nay, the very last hold of what makes power real in a civilized society) and then turn around and claim the government needs to control it because it’s dangerous…

You fully understand the inherent power within and it chills you to your soul to even fathom the reality of what keeping civilization and society TRULY fair and equitable means.

Or do you?

Skywise on December 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Only a semi-automatic weapon would have prevented someone from tackling him between shots. And this is the type of weapon usually identified as a target of better regulation.

*snort*

The gun most prevalent in murders here in the U.S.? The pump action 12 gauge shotgun, followed by the bolt action rifle.

Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Answer my question I posted above Mr. Semi-Automatic Kill Machine expert.

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Look at the weapons employed in past shootings and the difference in fatality numbers when the weapon is a handgun.
The only time you see a higher death toll is when the attacker combines a handgun with other weapons, such as bomb.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

How many were disarmed by unarmed citizens while firing?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Practice that against a pump action shotgun and let us know how well you do.

Dusty on December 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM

After yesterday, I didn’t think I could laugh again, but, bayam comes through once more.

a capella on December 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

… Even if the social cost is a lot of innocent people killed by deranged shooters from non-criminal backgrounds- shooters without the know how to obtain banned weapons.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

How stupid are you?

Ban the weapon and it will cost more but be no more difficult to obtain than a gram of cocaine in downtown Hartford, Connecticut on a Saturday night.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Look at the weapons employed in past shootings and the difference in fatality numbers when the weapon is a handgun.
The only time you see a higher death toll is when the attacker combines a handgun with other weapons, such as bomb.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

How many were disarmed by unarmed citizens while firing?

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

It happens. Not only that, but when a less efficient weapon is involved people have time to run away.

Keep it up, at least your’e trying to rationalize.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hero-teacher-reportedly-tackles-gunman-at-illinois-high-school/

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Look at the weapons employed in past shootings and the difference in fatality numbers when the weapon is a handgun. The only time you see a higher death toll is when the attacker combines a handgun with other weapons, such as bomb.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Charlie Whitman disagrees.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Someone has probably linked this already but it was news to me. This was the worse school massacre in U.S. history.

Cindy Munford on December 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Why isn’t MURDER illegal?

/s

TinMan13 on December 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Hey let’s all leap off the Constitutional Cliff.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

It happens. Not only that, but when a less efficient weapon is involved people have time to run away.

Keep it up, at least your’e trying to rationalize.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

You mistake attempts to make sense of the childish rantings of a childish mind as acceptance. You have an answer for my question yet super firearm genius?

NotCoach on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

And let’s not forget that Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

End of argument. Case closed.

A good resource: Does Gun Control Equal Crime Control?

petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

How stupid are you?

Ban the weapon and it will cost more but be no more difficult to obtain than a gram of cocaine in downtown Hartford, Connecticut on a Saturday night.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Right, and the illegality of RPGs doesn’t have any impact on the difficulty of obtaining an RPG in downtown Hartford. Because affecting the supply of drugs is comparable to affecting the supply of large weapons. Perhaps you’re not as superior an intellect as you’d like to imagine.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3