Sam Levin over at Westword recently wrote a great piece outlining Denver Mayor Michael Hancock’s views on gun policy in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting last month. Unlike Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Hancock does not believe the tragedy in Aurora signals the necessity of stricter guns laws — despite his membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.
From Westword:
“You know, that tragedy in Aurora, I would not use — and the reason why I did not speak out about it — I wouldn’t use it as a bully pulpit for political [reach],” Hancock said when asked if he supports the coalition’s ad campaign. “That suspect obtained those weapons legally. I certainly will stand firm against illegal guns…. The reality is this: If we want to talk about how we avoid situations like Aurora, let’s go to the heart of the problem and not the symptoms.”
…
“Obviously, we don’t want our young people to be carrying weapons. There’s no excuse for them to be carrying weapons — certainly, illegal gun possession,” Hancock said. “You can tell from my message today that I really believe this is much bigger than just gun control…. This is about individuals who have low sense of worth and purpose, where they can engage in activity that’s going to put them behind bars potentially for the rest of their lives or could end someone else’s life indiscriminately. So I think it’s much deeper. I think it’s about families, it’s about communities, it’s about self-worth, and we’ve still got to stay aggressive on the issues of gun control.”
…
About suspect James Holmes, Hancock said, “What you saw was the manifestation of some problems that went unaddressed…. We’re seeing now, as the stories are becoming known, that people knew he had psychological…psychiatric problems, and quite frankly, they didn’t respond appropriately and give him the help as well as to make sure…we prevented this kind of violence.”
…
He added, “The heart of the problem starts with the individual behind the gun.”
Hancock’s stance against using last month’s shooting to advance political agendas is admirable, but it certainly isn’t original. In the hours and days following the massacre, many politicians across the country echoed similar sentiments.
That said, re-examining local, state, and federal gun regulations following a mass shooting shouldn’t always be framed as the manipulation of tragedy for political purposes. Indeed, “why?” and “how?” are perfectly reasonable questions for policymakers to ask, as is “what can we do to prevent this?” Hancock believes, according to Westword, that community support for the mentally ill must be one part of the conversation.
He’s right. But so too should discussions about the accessibility of guns, legal or illegal, and ammunition. Hancock’s in a unique position to spark those conversations, and he shouldn’t fear that speaking out is akin to seizing the “bully pulpit.”
This, remember, is the same mayor who banned the short-term problem of “urban camping” to address the long-term problem of homelessness. And while long-term examinations of armed violence should indeed start with helping those with psychological or self-worth problems, in the short-term, a discussion about gun control is far from inappropriate.
