St. Louis Mayor and Police Officers Shot 2/7

[Neo-Luddite]

What seems to be coming out is that the man had a LONG history of erratic behavior in a public forum, had been cited for disruptions in the past, and has been pressing court cases against the town, etc.

His brother is describing the actions (of the attacker) as akin to 'going to war'.

It will be interesting to see what comes out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you think 30 people would have been armed, you are mistaken. How many members in that meeting had CCW licenses?

That's sort of the point. You shouldn't need a license to exercise a basic human right.

but most citizens don't, including in Alaska and Vermont where no permit is required.

for the same reasons, it's poo pooed so often it's seen as not being worth the trouble in many cases.

I'm not talking about a few extra CCW permits issued, and the fact that you still think within the confines of some restrictive concealed carry permits is exactly my point.

Even a pro gun person like you is conditioned to think inside that very restrictive model of permits, paperwork, concealment, etc. for a basic human right.

I doubt one shot would have done it.

Maybe not, but it might have, and that's the point. Being denied the right to try means we'll never know whether one shot would have done it but I'd rather live in a country where I can take that chance, rather than face the CERTAINTY that no one will shoot back at all.

 

[Ske1etor]

You all completely mistake what I say, too. I am not against. I am hard core for CCW. Man, I'm for the right to carry concealed without permits! But in this case, with what he was doing, how many shots you suppose it would take to put him down? I doubt one shot would have done it. I'm saying this guy did not want to survive (like most mass-shooters). But what ever. If you think 30 people would have been armed, you are mistaken. How many members in that meeting had CCW licenses? That is how many you would have had armed if the proceedings would have allowed legal carry. How many? Missouri has CCW. City officials often are allowed to carry - like Judges. Even if it was a gun-free zone with all its idiotic notions, how many in that room had a CCW? I'll wager none of them did. But even if some did, most did not. Therefore, CCW carry in such a situation would have made very little, if any, difference.

Now, we can argue that they should have been able to carry, but most citizens don't, including in Alaska and Vermont where no permit is required.

If getting disarmament zones shut down and allowing CCW in these such buildings saves ONE SINGLE LIFE it makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I say its worth a shot because obviously the whole gun free zone thing isn't working out.

 

[mhillsing23]

I am from StL and have family, friends, and co-workers who live in Kirkwood. Some have attended city council meetings in the past. Everyone I know is safe and healthy. My heart really goes out to the Kirkwood PD. They have had a very rough couple of years!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And once again, a shooting in a victim disarmament zone.

The officers were armed.

That's sort of the point. You shouldn't need a license to exercise a basic human right.

Carrying a gun isn't a basic human right. How can something invented a few hundred years ago be considered a basic human right when the item hasn't existed for the majority of time humans have existed?

 

[TexasRifleman]

The officers were armed.

One armed police officer in the chambers, shot him first because he knew who would be able to shoot back, then walked around shooting the others. The other officer was shot outside, before the shooter went into the building.

CLEARLY a victim disarmament zone.

He started yelling about shooting the mayor while walking around and firing, hitting police Officer Tom Ballman in the head, she said.

The shooter then went after Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, who was sitting in front of Swoboda, and shot Yost in the head, McNichols said.

She also said the shooter fired at City Attorney John Hessel, who tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs. The shooter then moved behind the desk where the council sits and fired more shots at council members.

Safe in the knowledge that they, as good law abiding citizens, would be unarmed.

 

[The Drew]

I have a feeling that shootings like this are some of the first shots fired in a coming war...

This shooting could've been avoided had the government butted out of this man's life...

And it looks to me like he even pursued his legal alternatives for redress, and when that failed. He chose to step down from his soapbox and open up the cartridge box...

I'm not saying he was justified, but as government encroaches further and further into our lives, and more and more abandons the constitution that was supposed to protect us from tyrrany, more shootings of this type WILL occur.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not saying he was justified, but as government encroaches further and further into our lives, and more and more abandons the constitution that was supposed to protect us from tyrrany, more shootings of this type WILL occur.

Which is probably why they want us all disarmed

 

[The Drew]

Yeah, so that when the elected government trashes our rights, and the judiciary goes along with it. And when all other recourse fails, we won't have the ability that the founding fathers intended to resist that tyrrany through the use of arms.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Double Naught Spy said....

And once again, a shooting in a victim disarmament zone.

The officers were armed.

and

That's sort of the point. You shouldn't need a license to exercise a basic human right.

Carrying a gun isn't a basic human right. How can something invented a few hundred years ago be considered a basic human right when the item hasn't existed for the majority of time humans have existed?

DNS, please don't take this as a personal attack but do you realize how much it sounds like you have been infected by the "anti" rhetoric?

Yes the officers were armed, however every other law abiding citizen was disarmed, tricked into believing the nanny state promise of "you don't need to do anything because we are here to protect and care for you". As a result of this disarmament we get quotes such as “After that, I was on my stomach under the chairs,” she said. “I laid on my stomach waiting to get shot. Oh God, it was a horror." If that isn't a person who has been stripped of the ability to defend herself then I don't know what is.

As to "How can something invented a few hundred years ago be considered a basic human right when the item hasn't existed for the majority of time humans have existed?", That's a straight anti red-herring statement and I'm astonished to read it here. The issue isn't guns in specific (though the antis would love to trick us all into believing that's the basis of the argument), the issue is personal self protection which is and has always been a basic human right.

The tools that provide the best form of personal protection become inextricably interlocked with the exercise of that right ESPECIALLY if those tools are necessary to maintain parity with the villains and criminals. At one time it was clubs, then swords, then bow and arrow, flintlocks, metallic cartridge based firearms...and who knows what in the future. The principal stands regardless of the change in the tools.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Carrying a gun isn't a basic human right. How can something invented a few hundred years ago be considered a basic human right when the item hasn't existed for the majority of time humans have existed?

Humans have had the right to defend themselves since the beginning. To that end, humanity has created various arms through out history. Man's creative genius is his only defense, especially when cornered. That is why we have the right to keep and bear those arms we've created over time. Firearms(guns) are but one step in the development of man's arms. We have the right to keep and bear them, not because some new right has been concocted that would cover firearms(guns), but as a consequence of their invention as arms.

Woody

 

[TexasRifleman]

Carrying a gun isn't a basic human right. How can something invented a few hundred years ago be considered a basic human right when the item hasn't existed for the majority of time humans have existed?

You gotta be kidding me.

Using tools to protect my own life, any tool from fists to sticks to rocks to Glocks is a basic human right. How in the world can you say otherwise?

By your statement then you believe that the Second Amendment only protects the right to arms that were available on the day it was written?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Anyone found out what sort of firearm he used?

Woody

 

[silverlance]

I have a feeling that shootings like this are some of the first shots fired in a coming war...

I agree with you, and I am disturbed. The Democrats want to take away my rights; the republicans want to convince me that they never existed in the first place.

What is a man to do in this grim time, as our freedoms are stripped away one by one?

 

[ZeSpectre]

I told my wife months ago that there would be actual bloodshed over this election. Mark my words and let's see how it turns out.

 

[armoredman]

Seems like a huge argument for CCW - the only people carrying were carrying open, and were shot first. The obvious defenders were eliminated, and then the defenseless were targeted, while other defenders rushed to the scene.
Most likely the city council will not use this to authorize CCW by regular citizens in the meetings, nor is it likely that city council members will begin carrying concealed, (maybe), but if they start adding some plainclothes police in the crowd, that would be a start, and most likely solution.

 

[Anonymous Coward]

And it looks to me like he even pursued his legal alternatives for redress, and when that failed. He chose to step down from his soapbox and open up the cartridge box.

I'm not saying he was justified...

Yes, you are.

And no, he wasn't.

Are we sticking up for mass murderers and cop killers now?

 

[Risasi]

AC,

The Drew did not say he was justified.

And if the city guys tried to railroad him, like it appears they might have been, and he had no other recourse, I think he was justified. That's still a big "if" right now. Need more details. I'll be following this closely.

[EDIT]

This event reminds me of a line in Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged". Some of the Looters are putting sanctions on the Hank Reardon character. In exasperation he accuses them of trying to "eat them". I'll see if I can find that line.

 

[willbrink]

What I have not seen mentioned here so far - unless I missed it - was the shooter a legal CCW holder? That makes a HUGE difference to the anti position here. Can anyone confirm?

 

[bogie]

Justified?

Sheesh.

Kirkwood is a -nice- section of town. I'm guessing this guy was storing building materials in his yard, maybe a trans-camaro or three, and he's wondering why he's getting cited for stuff. Plus, he is probably also wondering what happened to the housing boom (define: boom...), and was irritated by that. So he shoots folks? No justification in that. Ever.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I doubt he could have had a CCW......

Thornton was often a contentious presence at the council's meetings; he had twice been convicted of disorderly conduct for disrupting meetings in May 2006.

 

[Risasi]

We'll see bogie,

So far I've found out they hit him with 150 tickets, and barred him from showing up at public meetings, then when he tried to fight that in court, based upon the unconstitutionality of barring him he lost that case.

Just a precursory look indicates to me he may have been getting railroaded. Nowadays the "law" meddles too much. You meddle enough people feel like they have nothing to lose...and sometimes they don't. That's the very reason for our fight for independence, the reason we "illegally" threw a bunch tea in a certain harbor. Are you saying we weren't justified to throw off the chains of servitude put upon us by the king?

Again, this is all dependent upon the actual events that transpired, but to say it's never justifiable is just the chicken way out.

 

[Soybomb]

Its a shame all those people had to be helpless and had no option but to throw chairs and lay down waiting to be murdered.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS, please don't take this as a personal attack but do you realize how much it sounds like you have been infected by the "anti" rhetoric?

Zespectre, I don't take offense at all. I just think it sounds stupid to claim that carrying a gun is a basic human right. The argument being made as several people have restated is that self defense is the basic human right in question. What is trying to be accomplished is a sort of misdirection or bait and switch where it is trying to be claimed that carrying a gun is synnonymous with self defense and self defense synnonymous with carrying a gun. These are not the same terms or concepts. A gun can be a VERY GOOD tool for self defense, no doubt about it, but it is far from being the only self defense tool and is in no way synnonymous with the concept of self defense.

However, saying that carrying a gun is the same as being the basic human right of self defense is just as wrong as the ploys made by the antis.

If we are in fact the good guys who are arguing for a just cause, then why do we have to resort to such ploys? If you think that I sound like I have been infected by the antis because I am arguing for proverbial truth in advertising over using the same stupid tactics used by the antis, then I would suggest you re-evaluate your status as being the one who has been infected for going along with such shennanigans.

Seriously, do you think that such ploys are truly helpful to our cause? Or maybe you think it is okay to do such things because the general public isn't usually quick enough to pick up on such discrepancies?

Using tools to protect my own life, any tool from fists to sticks to rocks to Glocks is a basic human right. How in the world can you say otherwise?

Simple, the basic human right is self defense. How that defense is attained is a separate issue.

I personally think I should be allowed to use flame throwers and full auto weapons in self defense as they would have a much more dramatic impacts (audibly, visually, and biologically) on the bad guys, but I am not going to claim that carrying flame throwers and machineguns are basic human rights. That just plain sounds silly, doesn't it?

 

[ZeSpectre]

However, saying that carrying a gun is the same as being the basic human right of self defense is just as wrong as the ploys made by the antis.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree because logically if
A) I have a right to self defense and B) Firearms are amongst the best self defense tools, then "B" falls under the umbrella of "A" and removing "B" has a serious impact on "A".

So I don't think it is at all illogical to say that to "keep and bear" the tools of self defense would be covered under the same God given right to defend my life.

but I am not going to claim that carrying flame throwers and machineguns are basic human rights. That just plain sounds silly, doesn't it?

No it really doesn't. Either you have the right to self defense (and whatever tools that requires) or you don't. I suppose I can see a case for trying to limit devices that, if misused or accidentally triggered, could cause a catastrophic event (like a flamethrower burning down a whole neighborhood) but aside from that what's the issue?