We can’t allow one crazed man to keep good people quiet
Dear Editors,
A front-page article this week noted that, in light of the Kirkwood City Hall shootings, many municipal officials are becoming wary of citizens who regularly attend City Hall meetings. In response, some have or are considering installing metal detectors. One city, Pine Lawn, has voted to bar anyone it deems disruptive from public meetings.
Although pointing out that one local resident’s persistence at attending meetings has exposed felonies committed by a local school district superintendent, it presents these “gadflies” as persons who could become violent. The article even featured a psychiatrist who described such individuals as having a variety of motives for coming to city meetings, such as social connection, entertainment, “do-gooder” syndrome, etc. In our apathetic society, is taking an interest in ones community so rare that it now must be a psychiatric disorder? Can the motives of everyone who comes to a civic meeting be so easily labeled or fit into a box? The article misses the most common reason many come to a city hall meeting: there actually are people who care deeply about their community and can find no other way to communicate with an unscrutinized municipal government that ignores, is unresponsive, or even–for political/election purposes–makes active obvious attempts to silence questions or discourse with residents.
The article observes that few people actually pay attention to municipal politics. This means civic figures can make deals with little scrutiny. Yes most people don’t care until officials want to take their property by eminent domain for a strip mall or the city plans to build something commercial/industrial behind the residential home. Then the right to show up and speak your mind becomes very important…but that right may soon be gone or seriously diminished if “local monarchs” get to define who, and what content, is disruptive.
In the recent movie, “Minority Report,” the government develops a system that predicts who will commit a murder–and arrests them before they do. We should be wary of attempts by political figures to try to predict citizens’ words and actions. Many politicians will deem anyone who disagrees with them as “disruptive” or potentially violent. And what about the reverse situation: politicians who continually rant, launch angry tirades and disrupt their own city council meetings? Who has the authority to remove them from the council chambers, as these politicians could become dangerous?
Do not allow Cookie Thornton’s violent acts to be used as an excuse to limit free speech or deny local residents the right to observe their government and speak their mind. In such a climate, backroom deals will proliferate.
Remember 1942 and Americans that had parents born in Japan? Who spoke up and stopped this? ”All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent,” or to BE silenced by their government.
Nancy Lubiewski
Florissant
Former Florissant Councilwoman
Thank God the GOP led missouri legislature allows people to conceal and carry firearms against the will of the people. Wonder if someone who is conceling and carrying and disgruntled might be the next one to show up at the next town meeting.
“Wonder if someone who is conceling and carrying and disgruntled might be the next one to show up at the next town meeting.”
Can you site me one, just ONE instance where a legally authorized concealed weapons permit holder went on a shooting rampage?
Flowing Robes,
Do you think additional gun laws will stop people intent on murder? If we just had laws against murder, rape, and assault everyone would obey them and crime would be zero. Oh, I forgot we all ready have laws against all of those things.
OK, Mr. Bellum: from the Violence Policy Center . . .
“On August 23, 1998 concealed handgun license holder Gene Hanson shot and killed his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend, Tim Twain Gooch, and then himself. According to the Houston Chronicle, a neighbor reported that Hanson staked out his ex-girlfriend’s home around 11:30 a.m. Another neighbor reported that about five hours later Hanson pulled his car behind his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend as their car pulled into the driveway. Hanson reportedly got out of his car, said a few words, and then opened fire. He did not shoot his ex-girlfriend, but killed Gooch and then himself.
“On April 1, 1999, concealed handgun license holder Randy Phil Allen II was arrested and charged with the 1988 murder of Alan Wayne Brunken. According to the Dallas Morning News, police believe that Allen and Brunken met for the first time the evening of February 28, 1988 at White Rock Lake, and the two men then went to Brunken’s home. There, Brunken was shot with a handgun and stabbed several times, allegedly by Allen. The police believe that overtones of the crime suggest it was sexual in nature. Brunken’s body was discovered on March 2, 1988 after he failed show up for work.”
How about these, from the Brady Campaign To End Gun Violence (plenty more - go to http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr):
“During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was “very short-tempered” and “always angry at just about everything.” One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, “I would shoot someone over a dollar.” According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years.
“On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm’s son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show.”
Why so many cases from Texas? Well, most states require that the names of conceal and carry permit holders be kept secret - Texas does not. I’m sure that that fact made you feel secure in asking for instances like these.
That gives me a great idea - you gun totin’ cowboys always seem to be so proud of yourselves; let’s publish the names of all conceal and carry permit holders, whaddya say?
You know, just like we do for sex offenders? I would feel much safer if I knew who had an arsenal in my neighborhood, especially since statistics show that a gun in the home is very unlikely to be used against an attacker or intruder.
Whaddya say, Mr. Bellum? Doesn’t that sound like a good idea? That way, all those evil burglars will pass by your house!
And your neighbors can avoid you like the plague.
So: the answer is “no, there is not just one instance.” Four (and more) sure, but not just one.
Simian
What does it say about a society that allows people to bring firearms into a building they’re not allowed to smoke in? I’ve had about enough. I now subscribe to Wyatt Earp’s gun policy: “No guns, no exceptions.”
Keeping people silent is the primary intent of nearly all local governments. It’s how they are able to squander our tax dollars and conspire to get more of them. Now they all have a real excuse for keeping people out of the meetiings no thanks to the Kirkwood shooter. Odd how voters look at the Federal electorate as being the crookedest of politicians and almost ignore the locals who spend large money to get elected to a job that pays almost nothing. The only ones that want it usually end up being someone with some sort of ulterior motive having little to do with the public good or a fanatical do-gooder that uses the position to inflict fines for short hem lines.
I guess it was inevitable that the usual suspects would turn this thread into yet another discussion on gun rights. That would be fine if the discuss was based on facts and not silly dogma.
I have not research the referenced cases on criminal activity by CCW permit holders. It is certainly possible that from the million plus citizens holding CCW permits that four would have committed crimes. However, the Brady group is a very unreliable source for information. They have been consistently misrepresented data in the past to support a radical anti gun stance. For instance, they have listed shootings shown to be in self defense as illegal uses of a firearm.
Numerous studies have shown decreases in crime from concealed carry laws. No legitimate academic peer reviewed studies have shown any increase in crime from concealed carry. Even the most liberal anti gun academics admit the effect is at least neutral.
Mr. Thornton was not a CCW permit holder. The revolver he used in his murderous rampage was stolen. Does anyone truly believe that not allowed law abiding citizens’ access to firearms would have prevented this tragedy?
Many factors effect crime rates. The availability of guns and CCW laws are one of the factors. In countries such as the UK, crime increased substantially after guns were greatly restricted. Women and older people are far more at risk from attacks from younger stronger assailants regardless of whether the perpetrator is armed.
This debate would be far more fruitful if we would all focus on facts and rational arguments.
Thank you Ms. Lubiewski for your letter. It is all the more heartening knowing that it comes from someone formerly on a city council/board of alderman. The article was disturbing, to say the least. I was especially disturbed by the way an elected official described Arnie Dienoff. Anyone who has ever met him would know he wouldn’t hurt a fly. Although I do not agree with all of his positions, I do defend his right to be vocal about issues that affect various levels of government. It’s too bad that the elected officials in Bellefontaine (since one official disparaged Dienoff) and in Pine Lawn (there recent move to ban indiividuals) do not agree.
Suzyjax,
I often do not agree with your posts, but in this case I believe you are correct. The first amendment has been under increasing attack. The attempts to limit free speech have come from across the political spectrum, but ironically are primarily from those who consider themselves liberal or progressive.
In this case security is used as the bogeyman to limit free speech. This argument is frequently made by both ends of the political spectrum. The “progressives” have attempted to limit free speech in many other ways such as campaign finance “reform”, “hate speech laws”, and employment law. Sexual harassment and discrimination laws that are defined by whether someone is supposedly offended have a chilling effect on free speech.
Free speech rights would be far more protected if the defenders would be more consistent. Virtually everybody agrees that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowed theatre or threaten someone with violence. Most other restrictions are suspect.