Sarah Overstreet wrote a column for today’s Springfield News-Leader titled “Fortress Springfield.” The gist of the column was that in light of the attack in Kirkwood, Missouri it might be a good move to get metal detectors put in place for anyone attending a Springfield City Council meeting.
It’s a sticky situation because we’re talking about adding a level of inconvienience on the off-chance that someone will decide to do the unthinkable and open fire at a Council meeting. The likelyhood that someone would walk into the chamber and start shooting is negligible. You would probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning in the parking lot than someone coming to Council and being gunned down. Still…it’s not a zero percent chance and one that can be prevented with the extra step of a metal detector.
I hate metal detectors. They’re a pain in the rear at the airport and don’t even get me started on the TSA. I certainly would not want to get searched and have to dump things into trays for a metal detector when I go to Council meetings. If I was thinking about only how I feel regarding metal detectors then I’d be on the bandwagon that it’s not necessary. However, I can’t look past the dead at Kirkwood. I have to sit back and realize that violence against our council is a viable possibility.
Now, let me state again, I think the chances are low. Despite the hate that some in our community continually express against Mayor Carlson and some council members I don’t see any of them going beyond insults and anonymous snide comments. However, it only takes one person to decide they have to do something to make a tragedy a reality. Whether you like them or not, the members of our city council are willingly putting themselves in a position to receive harsh criticism and attacks from people because of the decisions they make. Yes, they choose to run for that position but that doesn’t mean we as citizens don’t have at the very least a moral responsibility to provide them with some protection during their times of service. A metal detector would be only a small price to pay to give a measure of safety and security to the Council members, the staff and the citizens attending those meetings.
Now, I know if someone really wanted to take out a council member they could just find them in town somewhere and do it. A metal detector isn’t going to provide all encompassing protection. Still, it’s a good step and unfortunately our society today is to the point where it needs to be seriously considered if not implimented.
Councilman Doug Burlison said “In the case of city council meetings, I believe that we should keep the process as open as possible, thus providing a ‘release valve’ for public frustrations that can, over years, build up into potentially dangerous attitudes.” I agree with the sentiment that Council meetings should be a release valve for public frustrations. However, I think of recent situations involving some zoning issues that have created many heated attitudes and comments which haven’t abated because the results from those ventings have not gone in their favor. How long until that “release valve” just doesn’t work anymore and someone feels they need to go further?
Councilman Burlison also said “I honestly believe that a large part of our modern-day crime epidemic would vanish if the Second Amendment to the Constitution was respected as the practical law of the land.” Councilman, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it isn’t respected as that by many people and we can’t operate as if that is the case.
Perhaps a hand-held wand that could be used to search each person would be sufficient to do the job. It’s something that should at least be investigated.