Chaos at the carnival
Kids looking for trouble found it at a Roanoke carnival.
If the Drew Expo returns to the Roanoke Civic Center next year, its promoters had better be able to guarantee that the rides will be wilder than the crowds.
That wasn’t the case this past weekend when mobs of teens and young adults started more than 30 fights Friday night. That despicable, mobbish eruption was tame compared with Saturday night’s encore. Police say 400 to 500 young people ran around removing their shirts and threatening each other. Fights spilled over into the parking lot and then down Williamson Road where the McDonald’s was under siege. Such big swagger from tiny minds that draw power only when plugged into crowd-think.
May 23, 2012 - 6:16 AM
Another reason to go armed, even in good ol’ safe Roanoke. You never know when trouble can find you.
Cause guns would have made that situation better…..yeesh!
Yeah Jack, that is certainly the solution. Why didn’t the RTEB think of that stellar idea? Go figure.
I don’t know about the two of you, but if I were sitting in that McDonald’s or getting some gas at Sheetz with my children, and a wild mob of violent teenagers showed up, I’d be happy to have the ability to defend myself if necessary.
I wonder if this guy wishes he could have had the same right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147730/Father-56-critical-condition-stabbed-trying-shield-dying-son-frenzied-attack-hoodie-gang-outside-pub.html
By the way, Sandi, the RTEB *did* think of that:
“Another would be adding more than four or five off-duty officers to the security detail.”
Unless your assumption is that those off-duty cops would be leaving their tools at home.
Safety apparently wasn’t a concern for the operators so what is someone to do to keep safe? I have to agree with Jack. Being armed and prepared for self defense was the only legitimate answer.
These “”kids” are out of control. I’d definitely never go unarmed to something like this.
#7 “I’d definitely never go unarmed to something like this.”
Uhh, Chris, the smart thing to do here is not to go to an event like this at all. It was pretty well known that kids show up at this looking for fights or confrontations in recent years. Why would you put yourself or your family in harm’s way, armed or unarmed? Because as we’ve all been told, just being armed is no guarantee of safety, especially not in a mob like that.
#4 Training or no training, Jack, just how the heck do you decide whether or not to fire or whom to shoot when you’ve got at least dozens of potential assailants leaping on tables all around you? Pull the piece and threaten everybody? Fire a few shots into the ceiling? Plug one guy as an example?
@gdad: “Pull the piece and threaten everybody? Fire a few shots into the ceiling?”
Firing warning shots is always a bad idea… and unsafe.
“Pull the piece and threaten everybody?”
Sure. If my son is being attacked by a gang of thugs, I see no problem pulling out the gun and letting the entire room know that the next person to lay a hand on him will die.
Doesn’t seem to be as complicated as you make it out to be.
gdad, Avoiding events in public because others are out of control simply isn’t the answer. The people shouldn’t be afraid to go around in public with their families. Some may choose to hide at home, but I refuse that option.
Oh, now you are going to pretend you meant more security in your post #1 Jack. Laughable.
Bringing armed citizens into that volatile mix would only make it worse. And you have already shared that you are most always armed already so this is hardly a “change” in your POV. You just think it “justifies” it. For you, it might change something, for everyone else at the place…not so much. That is hardly a “solution” in any manner.
#8 – “Uhh, Chris, the smart thing to do here is not to go to an event like this at all.”
Then the thugs have won.
Sandi,
If you choose to be around those folks with no means to defend yourself, good for you. I do not.
First, I didn’t attend the expo, but not for any other reason than I just simply didn’t care to go. However, it is stories like this that remind me why I choose to be armed.
If this story isn’t enough, and the linked one isn’t enough…
Maybe this one: http://www.wtsp.com/news/watercooler/article/256102/58/Woman-attacked-while-ordering-lunch-at-drive-thru
Or, maybe this one: http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/151548325.html (turns out these kids were just pulling a prank, but they’re lucky that they got out of it with their lives)
Or, maybe this story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/security-camera-captures-brutal-beating-of-army-soldier-in-florida/
Surely an Army soldier shouldn’t need a gun to defend himself.
Rationalized political rhetoric based on “what-if” scenarios. What a convenient way to make one’s point.
Can I play? What if the situation escalates to where your child is in imminent serious danger? The use of a gun to defend one’s family is an option I prefer to have. Others can make their choice.
#11 & #13 Oh please, folks, I’ve been told by other gun carriers that because a gun doesn’t guarantee anybody’s safety, you should also exercise discretion and stay away from situations that you know might be volatile, unless of course, you have no or little choice. Is it really so important to take your family to a dinky little carnival just to show the thugs how brave you are? Exactly how much fun are you going to have knowing that you need to be hyper alert every second in case something breaks out next to you? Why wouldn’t you just pass and find something else entertaining to do?
Oh, that’s right, it’s your job to show the thugs.
I don’t hide at home. Far from it. I also don’t walk in certain neighborhoods at night and I can find another place to eat other than the Valley View IHOP in the evening. That’s not being a coward or ceding victory to the thugs. That’s just being smart.
#16 I suppose if we take your argument to it’s logical conclusion, if your viable options become less & the places you can go become fewer….your not being manipulated & intimidated, you’re just getting smarter.
#16 – “Oh, that’s right, it’s your job to show the thugs.”
Not at all, gdad. But it’s also not the thugs job to ruin events for people out to have a good time.
Look at who was fighting in the video. When you are raised and live in a culture where violence is glorified, that’s what you get.
It’s not up to me to make changes. On the contrary…I know how to act civilized, so no change is necessary.
The change has got to come from within their own community.
Seriously? Your solution is for every family that visits this exhibit to be armed? Seriously? That is a solution to you?
I try to apply the same logic throughout all of the activities in my life. I don’t like the inconvenience and cost of having to change a flat tire.
I make it a point to avoid driving on roads that might have a stray nail on them.
#17 If your options become fewer and fewer and you suddenly can’t go much of anywhere because of safety concerns, then it’s time to move elsewhere if possible or there’s a larger societal problem going on that isn’t going to be solved by everybody carrying guns.
gdad hit it right on the head, when He mentioned IHOP.
Why dont people in here see where the real problem lies.
I am sick of political correctness that endangers the community.
Civic center…Near Gainsboro…ctr ave and such need I say more…
IHOP…Valley view..Northwest..low income housing.. Need I say more..
80% if not more were african Americans that was part of this prob. at the fair.
Lets get to the real issue.
You cannot herd people like they were animals and corral them into congested areas of poverty, neglect and lack of opportunity and expect a better outcome.
Sometimes I think people were born yesterday. Over 50 years of this planned blight and deliberate segregation has brought us to this point. Blaming the kids for growing up “in the hood” we created for them, expecting them to be able to raise themselves above the levels of ignorance, poverty and perpetual cycles of drugs, gangs and violence is almost as stupid as deciding a gun in every hand is the answer.
I do not believe you would know the real issue if it beat you in the head.
Herb, where did you find your “factoid” that 80 percent were African American?
Surely, you weren’t basing that on the brief video of one skirmish on Friday. Or were you?
It’s a damn shame that today’s popular culture has created so many “gangsta’ wannabees”. The lifestyle that is glorified in much of today’s so-called “music” is being played out in society, to the point that these thugs are ruining events that were once “family friendly”.
My wife and I always enjoyed taking our kids to the Drew Exposition (and the Salem Fair) when they were younger. They always looked forward to it, and had a great time riding the rides.
Sadly, I would not do so today. There are other, safer options.
#23 Typical “progressive” clap-trap. First of all, whose policies created the conditions you describe? Secondly who “herded” anyone into the Drew fair?
Since when am I not supposed to attend a public event on City owned property?
Why am I supposed to relinquish my right & responsibility to protect my family & self?
Gdad’s point might be valid as to attending next year’s event. People will stay away. Is this a good or a “smart” development? Should we avoid the upcoming Salem fair? Ball games? Parks? Downtown?
If you wish to blame those who refuse to be victims, or feel some absurd guilt necessitating being one, knock yourself out.
People who choose to own & have guns available for self-protection are not the problem.
#23 – The people you claim were corraled in to poverty and neglect have greater opportunities these days due to entitlements and anti-discrimination laws than the people who pay for those entitlements.
They have created and glorify the lifestyle the are living and until people stand up and say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”, the problem will continue to exist.
Sadly, the people who need to make the changes in their own culture aren’t doing it.
No Luanne it was based on me being there with my 15 yo son.
Thankfully we were walking away from the fighting towards the back of the expo.
So please dont pull the political left race card. Mine is based on fact from me being there.
Your comment is based on a crystal ball.
Herb, you brought race into the discussion, so you cannot accuse anyone else of pulling that card. Would it have been better if the gangs you saw had been white? Asian? Their race is the problem to you, their behavior is the problem to me.
Jim Lucas, I hope that blather made you feel better because it certainly added nothing to the discussion. I do not think the answer to this problem is for everyone to go armed. I cannot imagine anyone, even daily gun toters feel that is the solution. What you choose to be “prepared for” is your problem, but that is not a viable solution to the problem at hand for anyone except you.
#26 “Should we avoid the upcoming Salem fair? Ball games? Parks? Downtown?”
I think you should if any of those ever get to the point where the Drew Exposition was obviously headed based on past years. The Salem Fair is pretty weird and perhaps a tiny bit scary at night, but I wouldn’t stay away because of that. And I see no reason to avoid any of the others.
#22 Herb, buddy, there are some “white” sections of Roanoke I would also avoid at night.
Oh, so now the truth about America herding people into ‘the projects’ and ‘the hood’ are my “claims”? Keep your eyes closed and pretend it is not the truth while it festers if it makes you feel better.
And if you want to know who is to blame? I’ll give you a hint, they will all have a D or an R beside their name and they served in our Congress. There is no bill, idea or policy, no matter how great, simple or important that they have not managed to mangle in their attempts to make the other side look bad. It is de rigueur, it is how the game they play with our lives is done. They can all afford to live, work, and play elsewhere. They can all afford security to come out to the fair for a stump speech. Their retirement is secure, maybe even in another country (if that is not a slap in the face what is?).
Hey Gdad, I am with ya… I wouldnt venture into a lot of places in Roanoke. I am just calling out the facts thats all.
Sandi…I am just stating the fact of the ratio…thats all…
Just like Gdad mentioned Ihop…same ratio…If it were white, asian or whatever I would have mentioned that…but it seems that when it comes to gathering crimes and fights and stuff like that..the MAJORITY not all…is either in the African American or Hispanic Race….
As far as the race card..it seemed that Luanne’s comment was baiting me that way..which is not true…
People are not supposed to own guns because Ms. Saunders can see social injustice (she’s the only one)…..and I am the only one who disagrees.
I never said gun ownership was the answer to all our social ills. I leave that to you. A life preserver will not fix a leaking boat, but can come in handy
Did someone say “blather”?
@Sandi: “I do not think the answer to this problem is for everyone to go armed. I cannot imagine anyone, even daily gun toters feel that is the solution.”
Is the solution a law that would make this type of fighting illegal at the Expo?
#32 – “Oh, so now the truth about America herding people into ‘the projects’ and ‘the hood’ are my “claims”?”
Wait a minute. YOU were the one who said we “herd people like they were animals and corral them into congested areas of poverty, neglect and lack of opportunity”! Of course it’s your claim!! You made the comment…it’s right there in black and white.
Wow…
Herb, I was not baiting you. I asked what you based your comment on. You had not previously disclosed you were present, and I had not seen any accounts that gave a racial breakdown.
Sorry Luanne for my post then. I thought you were implying that I was heading down the racist raod for my comment.
On the other hand you will never ever see a race breakdown on things like this from your paper or the TV media. It will always have to come from the public.
If you were to report a race breakdown another riot would probably happen or marches or something. Thats the problem when you have a political correct society.
Just like yesterday. I heard on Sunny FM about the young girl that was grabbed by some teenager, They reported a red hat jeans and some kind of shirt. Well thats fine a dandy, but who am I supposed to be looking for.
The fact that it was a black male was left out on purpose, no doubt.
I got just one thing to say.
If my son or I are getting pummled by a group of these punks, I will gladly take Jim Lucas standing next to me rather then Sandi.
At least I will have a chance of survival and possibly overt serious injury.
From what I understand neither the newspaper nor the TV stations had reporters there during the fights. The racial breakdown of a crowd or of a suspect may or may not be included in an official police report. It may or may not bear reporting. In your example of the red-hatted suspect, if you were to be on the lookout, then race is important. So too is whether the suspect is bald, bearded or bare-footed.
I’m not as convinced as you that the racial profile is as important to this incident as trying to figure our where all these kids came from and why. What prompted them to converge in this place? Where did they come from? What role did social media play in encouraging this?
Also, Herb, when you say these things will have to come from the public, I’m assuming, and perhaps I shouldn’t assume, that you mean eyewitnesses. Be very careful with that, though, as an eyewitness sees only part of the whole. While reporters do speak with members of the public who happen to witness an event, their comments are placed in the context of the broader picture gathered from other sources.
No Michael, I stated a well known and documented fact and you called it a “claim” as in “to assert in the face of possible contradiction“. There is nothing to contradict what I said, it is the truth. I am not claiming some off the wall theory or ideal. It is what was done and we are reaping the seeds we have sown.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/claim
No it was not my idea, nor your idea, but is how the system unfolded and how it is in virtually every city/town/county in this nation. It was man made manipulation of people, containment of a perceived problem, forced and then choiced segregation, perpetuating what you lived, and simply no other viable alternative all rolled into one and culminating in what many cities are facing.
The problem is not just some gang that can be rounded up and dealt with, it is a pervasive part of our culture and I have no earthly idea how we fix it now. Well I do, but it would take so much more money than anyone is willing to spend. I still do not believe everyone being armed at the fair is a solution either.
Jack, stop it. You were armed everywhere you could be (and several where you couldn’t) already.
Jim Lucas you lost the argument so now you are putting words in my mouth. Stop it.
Wise move Herb, regardless of a gang wanting to beat you down.
Racial profile is very important when it comes to a child or any crime.
Thats just crazy. Then should America’s most wanted and all other media just put down what type of cloths this person was wearing and weather he had hair or not be. That leaves to many people. At least it can be narrowed down if the race of the individual is known.
#40 – “I’m not as convinced as you that the racial profile is as important to this incident as trying to figure our where all these kids came from and why.”
Really, Luanne? Have you not seen story after story about groups of black youths being violent lately? Of course race is important in this incident. By failing to report on it, the media is overlooking a very serious problem that is becoming worse every day.
One thing is pretty sure, these kids have effectively ruined having a fair in Roanoke and probably many other events for a long time. Secondly, Roanoke must find out why this took place and why these kids acted in such an inappropriate manner. Lastly, if Roanoke should have another event, lets see The Festival, Fourth of July, etc. there will be a bunch of gun carriers there waiting for a replay. That should work well when in all probability, at least some of the kids causing the problem will have guns as well. Sounds like a jolly good time in the old hometown.
I am somewhat perplexed as to race being brought into this. The fact that many of the kids were black would seem to have no more importance than the fact they were kids. How and why they came, what provoked the fighting, was it gang related, social network related, the fact it was close to their neighborhoods, was it school related all seem to be more important than race. For those of you bringing race into the mix, you are showing your own lack of imagination. They may have been 100% black, but it is not race that brought them out. They may lack parenting, they may lack good role models, they may simply be hoodlums, but all of those problems are not race related, they are societal problems. You can fix the societal problems with education, police, jails, etc. you can’t fix race. Suggesting it is a black thing or even it is not a white thing is simply inaccurate, wrong, and racist.
If you look at the only video I have seen offered so far, it is quite apparent that the people all heading to the area of the incident are majority white to me. They seem to know where they are heading and the taping of it seems to imply they knew why too. The actual punches thrown appears to be from a black teen to a black teen so race is not the issue on the surface. I think Luanne is on the money. This appears to have been a predetermined group going into a predetermined swarm for some reason. I would be willing to bet some social media chain is at the root of the size and mindset of the crowd. Once something like that gets kids fired up, bad things can continue. I hope it is not treated as an isolated thing and ignored.
#47 – Perplexed, Richard? Really. Oh, and I’m glad to see you threw the “racist” card into it. It was only a matter of time.
Look at the video. Do you see white kids fighting? No. Hispanic kids? No. Amish kids? No.
You see black kids fighting. Which, if you are up on current events, seems to be happening more and more.
That’s why race was brought into it.
Now go stick your head back into the sand.
#49, “it seems to be happening more and more” Any possibility that it is simply being reported more and more? White kids, Hispanic kids, Asian kids, etc. fight as well…depending on where one lives you will hear more about different groups fighting. Where I grew up we heard about all ethnic groups fighting…fighting each other, other ethnic groups, etc.
#50 – It could indeed be being reported more and more. On the flipside, it could also be being ignored…as evidenced by Luanne’s post.
Black on black violence is a non-story, no matter how important or serious it is.
However, should it be white on black, well, hold the presses.
Had the fights at Drew Expo been white against black, you can bet your last dollar race would have been an issue.
@Sandi: “Jack, stop it. You were armed everywhere you could be (and several where you couldn’t) already.”
I’ve been carrying a gun for nine years and I cannot think of anywhere that I have carried it illegally.
Wow, so stating the fact the most of the troublemakers were black makes you a racist? Glad I took my daughter fishing this past weekend.
Are you going to make me find the bragging about Valley View in the archives Jack?
49. Michael – I see children fighting. What does the color of their skin have to do with it?
53. Maloof – What about the color of their skin bothers you.
49. Michael, you brought race into it and that is why you are being racist. Go into Amish country and you will find Amish fighting, Go into Miami or Southern California and you will have Latinos fighting,go into Newark and you will find white children fighting, go into North Roanoke and you will find Black youths. Being Black, Latino, or Amish or white does not make the children fight. So you are being racist in bringing skin color or ethnicity into the discussion.
“Uhh, Chris, the smart thing to do here is not to go to an event like this at all. It was pretty well known that kids show up at this looking for fights or confrontations in recent years. Why would you put yourself or your family in harm’s way, armed or unarmed?”
Just a quick point here. Liberals, particularly feminists, never go for this kind of reasoning when you suggest that there are places women shouldn’t go alone or that they shouldn’t dress provocatively if they want to avoid sexual assault. If you dare suggest those things your are assailed for blaming the victim and chastised fro suggesting women should have to change their lifestyle due to the illegal acts of others.
Similarly, they refuse this exact argument about terrorism as well, arguing that sacrificing personal liberties menas the terrorists win. And next:
“Training or no training, Jack, just how the heck do you decide whether or not to fire or whom to shoot when you’ve got at least dozens of potential assailants leaping on tables all around you? Pull the piece and threaten everybody? Fire a few shots into the ceiling? Plug one guy as an example?”
No to all the above, because this is real life, not a TV show or an anti-gun propaganda ad. Contrary to what anti-gun zealots believe, people don’t lose all common sense, rational thought or reason just because they are armed. In the story relayed in today’s paper, if I had my daughter/family with me I would have already passed my toddler off to my wife and told them to go straight to the car. If we were being assailed as described and it was to the point that I felt they were in imminent danger, I would shoot the guy who pulled the knife in the head.
No, I realize It wouldn’t make things better, but it would most likely allow my family the opportunity to get away.
@Sandi… Again, not illegal to carry in the mall. They don’t like it, but they don’t make laws.
#58 “Liberals, particularly feminists, never go for this kind of reasoning when you suggest that there are places women shouldn’t go alone…”
While I’m not a “feminist,” I MOST certainly would advise women there are places they shouldn’t go alone, whether it’s because they might be assaulted, robbed, or, yes, even raped. As for dressing provocatively, I think the wisdom is that dressing suggestively doesn’t mean the woman “deserved” to be raped, which some folks are wont to suggest.
#54 Now, now, Sandi, Jack said “illegally.” It isn’t against the LAW to carry in Valley View, just against their rules. And, yes, Jack took great pride in carrying it in there anyway.
Your lack of logic is yours to own Chuck, but again, YOU being armed does nothing for the rest of the families there, so in “real life” your solution is only a solution for you and does nothing to stop the situation from happening. Now, if you know how to make sure they ONLY hassle the armed attendees, it WOULD be helpful for you to share that and we can implement it everywhere. Unless of course that is your solution, everyone arm themselves everywhere they go. Great idea Wild Bill!
BTW, women who do not “dress provocatively” get sexually assaulted too. So your idea of women surrendering to fear and men being armed is just a peach of an idea. I’ll look for the PSA on the TV Box.
So if it is posted it does not matter? Jack, you are playing games…again.
@56 “What about the color of their skin bothers you.” Nothing, I don’t have a problem with color I have a problem with bad attitudes. What does bother me is your feeble attempt to race bait. The trouble makers were not green, purple or blue? Please show me the video of the blue, green or purple people? Or dare I say white people fighting? Perhaps you and the other liberals can take your white guilt to these “Societal problem neighborhoods” and do some community service if it makes you feel better. You remind me of Jim Carrey’s “Environmental Guy”
#57 – So according to you, by mentioning the fact that the kids fighting in the video were black, that makes me a racist, Richard?
Unbelievable.
“I see children fighting. What does the color of their skin have to do with it?”
It identifies which group needs help, Richard. Kinda hard to help a group if you are afraid to pinpoint them.
#58 – “… I would shoot the guy who pulled the knife in the head.”
Really, Chuck?
“Center Mass” is much easier to hit.
What do the following things have in common?
- Carrying a gun in Valley View Mall;
- Starting to climb the diving board ladder before the person before you has jumped;
- Being the seventh child in the bouncy house designed for six;
- Bringing your own bag of M&M’s into the movie theater.
ANSWER: They are all equally criminal in the eyes of the law. They all carry the same penalty.
My wife came up with another great example of Sandi’s criminal behavior… carrying sixteen items through the fifteen item Express Lane at the grocery store.
@Sandi: “So if it is posted it does not matter? Jack, you are playing games…again.”
I have not seen the sign. But, in either case, doesn’t carry the force of law. It is a mall rule, not a law.
If I am carrying a gun, and they do not like it, they may ask me to leave. I would honor that request. Likewise, they can ask me to leave for singing too loudly, and I would honor that request, too.
@Sandi: “YOU being armed does nothing for the rest of the families there, so in “real life” your solution is only a solution for you and does nothing to stop the situation from happening.”
This is classic. Are you implying that he should be responsible for not only himself, but others as well? Are you implying that he should be responsible for stopping the situation from happening in the first place?
You are trying awfully hard Jack and getting ridiculous. No sale.
You are all already “protecting” yourselves, posted or not, but again, this problem is not solved by everyone carrying a gun. That is a stupid solution IMO.
No I do not want any of you citizen soldiers around me, and no I do not want you to be or think you should be “responsible” for others, or stopping the situation. Which is again, why it is not a solution.
Not trying to sell you anything. A rule is a rule. It is not against the law to bring seventeen items into the express lane any more than it is to bring a gun into the mall. Against the rules, sure. Get you kicked out of the store/mall? Maybe. Against the law? Of course not.
My question is, where were the arrests? If you have all that at the carnival, McDonald’s and other places, where was the ID of the perps? Did the public not notice? Did the public not want to “snitch”? Did the police ignore the witnesses? Sounds like someone dropped the ball here badly. All the rest of the pseudo arguments presented by you partisans missed the real overriding question here! Sounds like a little old fashioned police work might have gone a long way, before and afterwards. If more advance work is not done, the Salem Fair will eclipse this fiasco. Just calling it now. But Salem will in all likelihood heed the warnings, and be prepared. Salem always outdoes Roanoke in the preparation department.
Good question Bill McClure. The police demonstrated how they “disbursed” the crowd with pepper spray but no one was arrested, no one was detained till their parents came to get them even, no one was held accountable at all except the Expo, the business and the patrons who were harassed, intimidated and frightened. That is no way to run a police department IMO. A few folks in a damn “paddy wagon” was the least we could have expected. Either we have underfunded the police to the point that they cannot do their job properly or they have decided that it is acceptable public behavior.
And another thing, people, including the Expo owner mention that the gangs of kids and the violence have “been escalating” so why did not some genius, see this coming? Are the police in Roanoke City that out of it?
#74 – “… why did not some genius, see this coming?”
Perhaps because they have their heads buried in the sand and are afraid to recognize the problem for fear of being called racists?
Sure, I can see how that stops people from showing their true colors on a blog, but you would be hard pressed to prove such an accusation keeps the cops from doing their job. They do not appear to be fazed by being called “racists” or anything else, for doing their job. Looks more like other reasons to me.
Have they been called “racists” for disbursing the crowd with pepper spray or wrestling the fighting teens to the ground? I see your need to grasp, I just don’t think it applies.
#77 – I’m not grasping at anything, Sandi. Violence by groups of black teens is on the rise and no one seems to want to face that fact. Point out that they are black and you get slammed as being racist.
It’s a fact that the black culture glorifies violence. The first step to stopping this problem is to put an end to the notion that that lifestyle is acceptable.
It is not.
You can’t do it and I can’t do it. It must be done from within their own community, yet it appears that they themselves are failing to do so.
How to prevent it from happening at the Salem Fair? How about if the leaders of Salem sit down with prominent members of the black community and bluntly say, “This behavior will not be tolerated…do something about it.”
I don’t think you get out much Michael. Anyone who does, or who, like myself pays attention and does some research, sees that the youth in EVERY nation, EVERY culture and EVERY venue have started this kind of behavior. Young Muslims are doing it, young Germans are doing it, young Brits, and yes, young Americans. In this community it might look like only “groups of black teens” but the unrest, discontent, and malevolence on the rise is everywhere. It is a problem, I already acknowledged that before you needed to whine about being called “racists”.
If the community COULD solve it, I think they would. I do believe they are trying. You cannot go into people’s homes and make them be better parents, guardians, grandparents, step-parents or adoptive parents. It would be great but that is not the Socialistic system we have.
This issue needs to be dealt with as a law enforcement issue when the behavior is against the law. If the teens are getting half of the “this is hopeless” message as I am every day, I can understand their anger but a strong dose of consequences is precisely what they all needed in this instance, IMO.
#79 – I don’t care about the youth in other countries, Sandi. I care about the youth in OUR country and the affect it is having on good, law-abiding citizens who can’t go out and have fun for fear of getting attacked by unruly black youths.
Pay attention? Obviously you aren’t. There have been attack after attack by young blacks…why aren’t you seeing those?
A couple of days ago a mob ransacked a 7-11 in Baltimore. Care to guess who made up that mob?
This weekend is “Urban Beach Weekend” in Miami. Store owners are closing up and getting out of town rather than deal with the increase in crime that comes with the urban youths.
Pay attention? Don’t make me laugh.
It is not a law-enforcement problem…it’s a cultural problem that is not being dealt with as it should.
Michael and Maloof – when you stereotype a group as criminals, as a mob, as whatever and categorize them by skin color, you are racist. You have labeled them violent as a culture, labeled them as not having morals and you pointedly indicate that whites do not do such things. You do not look beyond their ethnicity but rather say they must change their own community to suit your standards. These are the same arguments you give claiming th need to cut food stamps, WIC, and any other social program given to help those in poverty. Your claims and attitude are simply racist. You pretend to gasp and whine when you are called out for being such, when in fact you wear the label proudly.
#81 – “…labeled them as not having morals and you pointedly indicate that whites do not do such things.”
Show me where I said such a thing, Richard. I want to see where I said such a thing.
No implications, no innuendo’s…show me IN THOSE VERY WORDS.
Enough of your Liberal games, Richard. Enough of you calling people racist because of your white guilt and fear of facing facts.
Show me where I said the things you say I did.
You can’t because I never did.
C’mon, Richard…man up or shut up.
@ 73 and 74
Clearly you do not understand the issue the police face in this siuation. In between bemoaning the oppressive police state one minute and decrying the ineptitude of the police the next, try to realize that there were only five cops working this event. That’s not because the police were too inept to predict this issue. It’s because that was all the promoter would pay for. When trouble broke out, the on-duty cops working their regualr shift also responded. That brings the total up to ten or fifteen cops. However, they are facing a mob of thugs that numbered between three and four hundred. So fifteen guys get try to control a violent crowd that outnumbers them by a factor of twenty. And you guys think the prudent thing to do would have been for each officer to pick one person to arrest and leave the 300 people to fight it out? I mean I’m sure you wouldn’t weigh in with this criticism unless you were fully aware that in Virginia, when a cop arrests someone, he has to take them forthwith to the nearest magistrate and give probable cause to support the arrest, right? I know you wouldn’t criticize the police if you hadn’t fully educated yourselves on the laws of arrest and procedure so you wouldn’t be ignorantly criticizing the police for not doing something that neither the law nor common sense would allow right?
In an ideal world, every troublemaker would have been arrested and prosecuted, but unless you want to increase the number of police officers by a factor of about 20, it is just not realistic to expect that to happen.
Michael, I think you made yourself very clear and I do not believe Richard mis-characterized what you said or meant. He did not quote you, he interpreted what you said and I think he got that right.
Chuck, I do not think it is me that demands to be taxed less and for City budgets to be cut and “government leeches” to be let go. So clearly I am not the one who does “not understand the issue the police face in this siuation” or any other. I am not “bemoaning the oppressive police state” but I do object to the oppressive police mentality and yes, “ineptitude” which is a different problem. What would be a “police state” activity pray tell? Oh, you mean the OWS debacle? Yes, that would qualify. Apparently they can mow down and arrest white protesters pretty easily.
In a case like this, the police who were paid for by the event should have been in addition to the police on duty protecting the City in a potentially volatile situation. Many people have indicated this was an escalating and foreseeable problem. That is what they call “a clue”.
If the “only security” or police presence is what an event can afford, that is also a problem. No, I do not expect, nor did I ask for the people there to be able to handle the “mob”. I said they should have had a contingency plan and a “paddy wagon” on site for just such a need.
Are you trying to say the mob of hooligans was “between three and four hundred”? Are you counting the spectators? If you are correct, that is a riot and no riot police were called up were they? Is there no such thing in Roanoke?
I know enough to know that the rules of mob violence and the response are not the same as arresting one person. I have seen “paddy wagons” being loaded, in Roanoke. I have seen police presence be overwhelming.
I am nor criticizing any police officer per se. My gripe is with the Police Chief, training, response, and the City event planners who should have known better and a mob of 300-400 does not form in an instant with no one aware of it IMO. I think the archives of this blog prove that not being “fully educated” on a subject or even familiar with the truth has ever stopped the embarrassment that ensues. But it is good to see you appreciate it should be considered. While I appreciate that you believe you know “the laws of arrest and procedure”, I do not believe I have made any “ignorant” comments here. And if I did, or called anyone else same, I did not do so from the safety of anonymity. If the City police are not legally allowed to respond to and cannot handle a riot, we need to know that too.
If it was widely known that most people practiced concealed carry then these thugs would not be acting up. Get your permits now as this crap from these people seem to be escalating.
JimW, while I fully support the Second Amendment (with certain limitations!) I just don’t buy the “if more people had guns, there would be less violence” argument. On a purely anecdotal notes, where I grew up there were many, many people with guns, and the level of violence only escalated, especially in those areas where guns were prevalent.
I don’t pretend to have the answer to reducing the level and number of incidences of violence in The United States, but I do firmly believe that more people walking around with concealed weapons will not deter those “thugs” (as you call them) or anyone else from taking violent action. It is, of course, your right to defend yourself, but don’t interweave the two issues to form one conclusion.
Yeah you thugs! Get your concealed carry permits now so instead of just fists, you’ll have some real power.
…/end sarcasm
82. Michael, please reread what you have written. Your intent is very clear. ” for fear of getting attacked by unruly black youths”; “It’s a fact that the black culture glorifies violence”; “put an end to the notion that that lifestyle is acceptable”; “black community and bluntly say, “This behavior will not be tolerated”; “It identifies which group needs help”; ” glorify the lifestyle the are living and until people stand up and say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”, the problem will continue to exist”;”Then the thugs have won”. You blatantly state that black people do not have your defined moral standards nor the standards of the indicated white majority (your standards). So please do not lecture me about your racist standards, they are clear in your stereotyped writing.
#88 – Who is getting unruly at the fair, Richard? It sure as heck isn’t the Cave Spring High School Chess Club.
Until you are willing to specifically identify a group that is causing problems, you will never be able to solve the problem.
“You blatantly state that black people do not have your defined moral standards nor the standards of the indicated white majority (your standards).”
Again, I did no such thing. You wish I did, but I did not.
I’m done discussing this with you, Richard. It seems that you are incapable of understanding what I say, so any further discussion is pointless.
“unruly black youths” “It’s a fact that the black culture glorifies violence” your words, dude. Why does it matter that these particular youths were black? “White” culture glorifies violence too, why not point that out? American culture glorifies violence, why not point that out?
This is a violence issue, not a black issue. Attempts to make it about the color of people’s skin just diminish the focus of slowing (dare I say ending?) violence.
89 – Michael, I’ve discovered that discussing race with most liberals is, indeed, pointless. They have an uncanny ability to see “racism” where none exists – while at the same time, excusing blatant racism from their own side (comments by VP Biden and Sen. Reid for example)…or as long as it suits their agenda (Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, et. al.).
Furthermore, I’m convinced that liberals simply have a different thought process than we do. The logic they use to draw their conclusions and form their opinions, makes no sense to me. Likewise, I’m sure our logic makes no sense to them.
I still enjoy reading the comments on these blogs…but more and more unless a particular comment really “pushes my buttons”, I try to avoid getting involved in the discussion.
For what it’s worth, I understand what you mean. And I agree. So if that makes me a racist in the eyes of the libs on this board, well so be it.
Just take a look at some of the other carnivals/festivals/fairs that happen in our area – particularly in more rural areas (like Buchanan for example). Many of the youth in these areas listen to the same music, watch the same movies, etc. Yet they don’t have these problems for some reason.
#91 – You are correct, Rick, it is pointless.
Once the “Racist” insult is thrown, it becomes very apparent that the person is unwilling (or unable) to understand the point and thereby relies upon insults and untruths to deflect from their own inability to face reality.
OtherRick, many Liberals probably understand racism better than you do, which is why it seems they see it where you can’t. Pretty simple. Being a racist isn’t a question of “the eye of the beholder;” you either hold those attitudes or you don’t. Again, simple.
Once again, the bottom line is simple. Protect yourself and family against reality, or choose not to. But don’t tell me I can’t.
As to all the rest, the usual suspects.
I freely and happily admit that I am incapable of thinking as the professed conservatives here do. Not a day goes by I am not thankful to God for that truth.
Odd how it is the term “racism” that makes the discussion so hard for folks who have had no problem relying “upon insults and untruths to deflect from their own inability” to discuss the issue without same. It happens every time true colors are exposed here and then the conversation is shut down either by the moderator or the refusal to wallow where they were so happy to be only moments before.
A glaring example of how each “side” thinks, is the assertion that Obama got where he has and was elected because he is black and that people who vote for him because he is black (of which some of you are certain) means they are racist, compared to your fiery refusal to consider that anyone could find that very assertion racist, or that people who voted against him because he is black was equally racist (of which I am certain). The constant come back is “anyone who criticizes Obama is a racist” when that has never been the contention in the first place.
Granted no one here has used the N-word or other epithet, but intent is the interpretation of the words that are used. If it seems so plain that you are then challenged on your words, maybe that means that you should examine your words, insults and untruths as opposed to insisting that we just cannot comprehend what you mean. If we do not believe it is acceptable to speak of minorities in such tones, we have the right to say so. Tone and context matter. Racism is not always an angry epithet, it is often more subtle and embedded. SAYING you are not racist and do not feel racism towards anyone, then posting in angry, belittling tones says otherwise to me and my “different thought process”.
Please remember to keep the discussion civil. Thanks very much.
Ms. Saunders…..I challenge you to produce any inference of any kind, in this thread or any other, of racism by me.
It’s your smokescreen, and I see right through it.
#97 – Don’t bother, Jim. Screaming “Racism!” is a favorite tactic of the Left.
It is not at all a “smokescreen”. It is how I see this and many other discussions we have. Obviously, if you have made no “inference of any kind” then I am not speaking to or about you. In case you have not noticed. You are not remotely the only person who has posted in this thread.
We will never make progress if everyone just gets defensive instead of trying to see the point being made. People keep bringing up being armed, I say that does not fix the problem. People keep saying that it is a “black problem” and the black community alone can “fix that” and I say that is not necessarily true and that it seems racist to me to make such claims against the entire black community. Instead of getting self-righteous and indignant, show me what you mean if it is not racism rearing in your remarks.
If you cannot do that, then sure, lash out and prolong any chance for understanding or solutions.
Nobody is making claims against “the entire black community”. But ignoring the fact (and the evidence) that the problem it is prevalent in that particular group, is sticking your head in the sand.
It’s safe to say the majority of blacks do not participate in, or condone, this type of behavior. Nevertheless, unfortunately there is still a significant number that do.
As for examining our so-called “words, insults and untruths”…just because you see them as insults and untruths, doesn’t necessarily make them so. Perhaps you should reexamine your comprehension of what we’re trying to say.
Furthermore, we will never make any progress if people simply cry “racism” instead of trying to see and understand the point we’re trying to make.
#99, from your # 95; “I freely and happily admit that I am incapable of thinking as the professed conservatives here do. Not a day goes by I am not thankful to God for that truth.”
I suppose you do not consider me one of the “professed conservatives”?
Your problem is, you are guilty of precisely that which you accuse others. Lumping them by group & making derogatory en masse conclusions.
Every time you get called, even with your own words, you go in to the indignant routine.
Michael, did it ever occur to you that there may be a very legitimate reason you see so many comments calling your dialogue racist.
#100: you state “Nobody is making claims against ‘the entire black community’”. Then scroll up a bit: “It’s a fact that the black culture glorifies violence” I believe this gem came from Michael’s keyboard…just sayin’
87…your sarcasm is flat. Thugs carry anyway without regard to “permits.”
#101 Naaaahhhh, the REAL reason we aren’t making any progress is because of people like you seem to have zero self-awareness. If claiming “the problem…is prevalent in that particular group” is a “fact” like you do without citing any sources ISN’T making claims against an entire community, then I don’t know what is.
#103 – ” Michael, did it ever occur to you that there may be a very legitimate reason you see so many comments calling your dialogue racist.”
Sure it has, Richard.
It’s because those that are trying to insult me by calling me a racist are Leftists and are unwilling (or unable) to see the truth for what it is.
“So many comments”? Let’s see…in this thread it’s mainly been you and Sandi. Both of you despise Conservatives, so you calling me a racist is pretty much meaningless.
106 – “If claiming “the problem…is prevalent in that particular group” is a “fact” like you do without citing any sources ISN’T making claims against an entire community, then I don’t know what is.”
Good God, man, the group creating the problem is on freakin’ video!
What more of a “fact” do you need?
Pardon me if I find your accusation comical Jim Lucas. “Every time you get called, even with your own words, you go in to the indignant routine.”
Do you want to sue me too?
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/05/dumb-gun-law-of-the-week-docs-could-not-ask-about-firearms/
Posts #84 and #87 specifically prove that I am not the only one to become “indignant” when called on something.
I most assuredly consider you to be among the “professed conservatives”.
Why did you take exception to my admission of my thought process being very different and ignored The Other Rick when he made the original charge? Just casting stones?
Michael, the group on the video is definitely mixed racially and only the punch throwing was black teens that I saw. Do you have a different video? Maybe the one with the hundreds of black marauders on it? I have seen a lot of accusations fly here and no evidence whatsoever to back them up.
Show me where “only one community” was roaming the Expo taping the fight?
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/309161
#110 – Yep, the group was mixed. But who was throwing the punches and who was watching?
@Sandi: “People keep bringing up being armed, I say that does not fix the problem.”
If you got very ill, would you take medicine that would treat the symptoms and look for a cure, or would you forego the medicine all together and simply look for a cure?
Do you think that if the police pull over an intoxicated driver he should be arrested? Or do you think they should let him go in lieu of solving the problem. Arresting the guy doesn’t solve the problem of drunk driving.
I would love to see the problem of random, pointless violence go away… if you come up with a solution, please do offer it. People have been trying for centuries to come up with such a perfect solution.
Until then, I’ll just do what I can to make sure that my family is not a victim of it. If you want to be one until the solution is found, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
Thanks again for that brilliant analysis and insult that solves nothing, Jack. Remember that old adage, “You are either part of the problem or part of the solution”? Well saying to “arm yourself” is simply admitting that the bad guys have won. Go ahead. I refuse to live like that. If I die because of my beliefs, that is still as free as you can get. I will not live as if under siege. That is not being free. Nor is it being part of the solution.
@Sandi,
Do you support screening at the airports for dangerous items? Why? Why not just solve the problem rather than pick out dangerous items one by one?
If we are treating law-abiding citizens at the airport like terrorists, then the terrorists have already won, too, right?
Would you support the removal of the security checkpoints at the airport in lieu of solving the actual problem?
Sorry you missed the memo Jack, but yes, the terrorists have already won. It was called “The Patriot Act” and “Homeland Defense”.
So now you say we should have pre-screening at the Expo when you said that any measures like those mentioned in the commentary we discussed were “unconstitutional”? Can you make up your mind?
@Sandi: “So now you say we should have pre-screening at the Expo when you said that any measures like those mentioned in the commentary we discussed were “unconstitutional”?”
I said no such thing. I asked if you supported screening at the airport? Your suggestions have been that we shouldn’t do something that doesn’t solve the problem. I was wondering if you agreed that we should do away with screening at the airport?
I do not think we should have screening at the Expo.
OK, is this a different Jack? “Ahh yes.. the solution is to violate the Constitutional rights of other, law-abiding citizens. Sounds peachy.
Comment by Jack — May 27, 2012 @ 11:22 am”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/05/crack-down-on-extreme-behavior/#comments
He was suggesting several ideas less invasive than the screening you bring up and you insisted they were unconstitutional! What are you trying to say?
#114 Choosing to own a firearm is being “under siege” & “not being free”. How does one deal with “logic” like that.
“FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”, George Orwell, 1984
And to some, “Ignorance is Strength”
What I’m trying to say is that you dismiss anything that doesn’t solve the problem… or are you only dismissing them if it is carrying a gun?
Screening at the airport doesn’t solve the root problem, so why are you not calling it unnecessary?
I did not say that “Choosing to own a firearm is being “under siege” & “not being free”. I do own firearms and I am not afraid to use them. In the context of the discussion about bad guys winning, I said that saying “arm yourself” to go to the Drew Expo, is simply admitting that the bad guys have won IMO. We are a nation of laws, we are a lawful society and I do refuse to go armed wherever I go. You may not like it, but there is nothing illogical about it.
Jack, I have railed against The Patriot Act and all of the feel good screening from day one. It is not about security, it is about the illusion of it.
I also have not dismissed “anything that doesn’t solve the problem”. I applauded all of his suggestions and added a few of my own in various threads. In a society of laws and lawful behavior that scene was unacceptable on several levels, but again, just telling people to “go armed” is not a solution either so stop kidding yourself. In the case of the two kids who were fighting, what good would a gun have done in that scenario? In the case of the teens behaving badly in the McDonald’s, what good would a gun have done in that scene? Perhaps if you were directly accosted by a hoodlum or a gang of them, it might be somewhat effective, but in any of the cases described so far, someone pulling or shooting a gun would likely have made it all much, much worse.
@Sandi: “Jack, I have railed against The Patriot Act and all of the feel good screening from day one. It is not about security, it is about the illusion of it.”
I think we have found a topic that we agree 100% on.
@Sandi: “…just telling people to “go armed” is not a solution either…”
It is a solution for me. Certainly not for everyone.
@Sandi: “In the case of the two kids who were fighting, what good would a gun have done in that scenario?”
None. Let them fight. That neither hurts me nor threatens my life. The gun only matters if my life is threatened.
@Sandi: “In the case of the teens behaving badly in the McDonald’s, what good would a gun have done in that scene?”
Same as above.
@Sandi: “Perhaps if you were directly accosted by a hoodlum or a gang of them, it might be somewhat effective, but in any of the cases described so far, someone pulling or shooting a gun would likely have made it all much, much worse.”
Perhaps. If one of the people involved in the fight had pulled a gun, they would have done so in violation of the law. In fact, they likely would have been carrying it in violation of the law.
My carrying a gun lawfully, and using it lawfully, if the situation presents itself, is completely different than the scenario you are concerned with. You are comparing apples to oranges… law-abiding citizens exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed right to criminals. The two cannot be compared… at least not by a logical person.
Oh sure, the hundreds of people there would all have just slowly and quietly sauntered to their vehicles when they heard gunshots because they would of course all know that you were “lawfully” carrying a gun and “lawfully” using it. P-U-H-L-E-E-Z-E!
Jack, you need to understand something and accept that they are two different things. I support the second amendment and even the right to bear arms in public if you are not a fool (although too often they are), and I have some serious problems with what I consider useless “permitting” and half measures on getting guns out of the wrong hands, BUT, I still support a person being able to defend themselves and their family. BIGGER BUT, that is NOT a solution that should be advocated for all of our issues nor one that is defacto how our society works. Either we are a nation of laws and people abide by them (which most do and is what keeps us safe overall), or we are not and damned if I am going to admit we are not.
@Sandi: “…because they would of course all know that you were “lawfully” carrying a gun and “lawfully” using it.”
If I were using it, it would be to defend my life or the life of a family member. I don’t give a crap what anyone else’s reaction to that would be. At that moment, the only people I would be concerned with are myself, my family, and the person who is a DIRECT threat to myself or my family.
Any other concerns would be secondary.
@Sandi: “…I have some serious problems with what I consider useless “permitting”…”
I guess it is a good thing we don’t need your specific permissions to exercise a right.
I think the government in Maryland felt the same way you do, until recently when the court ruled that feeling to be unconstitutional.
I think the government in Maryland still feels the same way, they just got a judicial mandate…funny how everyone loves those when they are in their favor.
I don’t believe you understood what I said. The whole idea of a permit to carry is more of that “feel good” BS that has no basis in fact and no special significance. It is useless and a waste of time IMO. The laws we have are ALL predicated on “after the fact” of punishing crime so why pretend a permit matters? It doesn’t. Obviously for different reasons, but we are on the same page on that one. It feels good and assures only the people not paying any attention.
@Sandi: “I don’t believe you understood what I said. The whole idea of a permit to carry is more of that “feel good” BS that has no basis in fact and no special significance.”
While I don’t necessarily agree with you, you should join me in my fight to get rid of concealed handgun permits all together.
@Sandi: “The laws we have are ALL predicated on “after the fact” of punishing crime so why pretend a permit matters?”
I cannot believe you actually said this. While we certainly disagree on almost everything (we found one thing earlier today we agree on), I certainly didn’t think would say something that sounds this unintelligent.
No Jack, I’ll be joining you in no fights.
If it is so “unintelligent” (funny how the proctor always allows that one when it is used against me), tell me one thing that the gun advocates have ever supported that kept guns out of the hands of the unfit. You always insist that it is “prior restraint”. Do tell, I will be waiting.
I wholly support the instant check, but I guess that relies on them having already broken a law.
What have you supported to keep cars out of the hands of drunkards? And I mean BEFORE they drink, not after.
Oh now gun advocates support background checks? Do not try to turn the tables, you want to call my remarks unintelligent, then prove that gun advocates do not only support the laws that are an “after the fact” punishing for crime only. Prove gun advocates do not whine that every effort, including background checks are “prior restraint”? There is no effort or support for removing guns from hands that should not have them in the first place and there is no support for any true “gun control”. The people touting the importance of a concealed carry permit are the gun carry advocates. The rest of us know it is a joke. So prove me unintelligent for telling that truth.
#131 I will assume, for argument’s sake you consider the NRA “gun advocates”. The NRA has consistently supported backround checks & assisted in the original data base.
Do not “confuse” (or push the camel’s nose) this with registration or intefering with personal, in state transactions.
Please give us your definition of “true” ‘”gun control”‘.
You posted yesterday that you owned firearms. I don’t think you should be allowed to, you often sound irrational to me. The previous remark was (mostly) facetious, but how do you like that “true gun control”?
@Sandi: “The people touting the importance of a concealed carry permit are the gun carry advocates.”
I do not think that concealed handgun permits are necessary. I think they should be done away with.
@Sandi: “…prove that gun advocates do not only support the laws that are an “after the fact” punishing for crime only.”
Maybe I am misunderstanding… are you suggesting laws that would punish people “before the fact?”
@Sandi: “Prove gun advocates do not whine that every effort, including background checks are “prior restraint”?”
I disagree. Background checks reveal what you have done in your past, not your future. I have no problem with the background checks so long as they are instant (within an hour, I’d say is reasonable) and at no cost to the person purchasing the gun.
This is how they are now, and I have no problem with them. I have never felt inconvenienced by it when purchasing a gun. I have had friends, though, that have been held up for days before because of confusion with similar names or something. Personally, though, I’ve never had an issue with the instant check.
@Sandi: “So prove me unintelligent for telling that truth.”
I do not think you are unintelligent… on the contrary, I believe you are very intelligent. I just thought the statement was unintelligent. It seemed, at least to me, that you were suggesting we (the gun-toting folks) are silly for supporting only laws that punish people after they have committed a crime, as opposed to before.
I don’t think that is silly at all. But maybe I misunderstood you.
Jim Lucas, it is documented fact that the NRA went on high alert and spent millions to defeat the background check legislation (Brady Bill) and watered down the process to the instant background check. They then spent millions backing legal challenges to it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME with “The NRA has consistently supported backround checks“?
It is the NRA who considers themselves the gun rights advocates, no need to assume I think otherwise. The evidence speaks for itself.
I think “gun control” means what it says. The control of guns in our society. The NRA has fought every effort at gun control as “prior restraint” of a constitutional right, regardless of the carnage, accidents and incompetence we see daily.
I don’t think you should own or carry guns either, I find you both irrational and reactionary. SO WHAT? That will not buy a cup of coffee.
Jack, no I am not “suggesting laws that would punish people “before the fact”, I am saying that gun advocates and the NRA’s powerful lobbyists fight every effort at gun control as if it was punishing people before the fact instead of trying to keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. They always insist we wait until a crime has been committed to act on anything related to guns.
The idea of making voting harder and gun purchases easier is repulsive to me. Background checks at licensed dealers does not begin to touch on the ways that criminals and the unstable get guns. It is a feel good pat on the head to people who do not know any better.
What you as an individual “have no problem with” is not answering the truth that gun advocates and the NRA specifically have always had a problem with anything they can label “prior restraint” and you know that.
It is not “unintelligent” to state that “the gun-toting folks” only support gun “laws that punish people after they have committed a crime” and no gun laws that try to prevent the crime and the wrong person having the gun in the first place. It is the truth.
@Sandi: “They always insist we wait until a crime has been committed to act on anything related to guns.”
I don’t always agree with NRA. However, restricting of a Constitutional Right before someone has done anything wrong goes against everything that America stands for. You are innocent until you are guilty.
@Sandi: “The idea of making voting harder and gun purchases easier is repulsive to me.”
You are entitled to that opinion. It is one of those other great things that America stands for. But just because you are repulsed by it, doesn’t change anything. What one person is repulsed by, others rejoice in. Why is your position more important than their position?
@Sandi: “Background checks at licensed dealers does not begin to touch on the ways that criminals and the unstable get guns.”
I agree. And I agree with the comment that followed that it is a “feel good” thing… just like everything that TSA does.
Are you suggesting that if criminal A were to purchase a gun from criminal B that criminal B should require a background check of criminal A? Do you think that would work? If they are criminals do you think they would care about your background check requirement?
You suggest (in previous posts) that initial registration of the gun would at least provide accountability. OK… so law-abiding citizen A purchases a gun and then wants to transfer it (of course, this would then make him criminal) to criminal B. He could file off the serial numbers, making the gun untraceable. Your registration is now useless, but it still would at least infringe upon the privacy of those who obey the law, and it would still be a burden on the taxpayers…. but its real usefulness is negated by a simple Dremel tool.
@Sandi: “…have always had a problem with anything they can label “prior restraint” and you know that.”
Absolutely. I see no reason why we should restrict a person’s rights, or punish them, or even inconvenience them when they have done nothing wrong. We are innocent until proven guilty in this country and I see now reason to change that line of thinking.
@Sandi: “…and no gun laws that try to prevent the crime and the wrong person having the gun in the first place.”
Just to humor us… please define “the wrong person.”
“the wrong person”:
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold,
Michael Hance,
Jared Lee Loughner,
Christopher Speight,
Howard Unruh,
Nidal Malik Hasan,
Michael McLendon,
Robert A. Hawkins,
Seung-Hui Cho,
Jeff Weise,
John Allen Muhammad & Lee Boyd Malvo,
Colin Ferguson,
George Hennard,
Joseph Wesbecker,
Ronald Gene Simmons,
Patrick Sherrill,
Sylvia Seegrist,
Freddie Lee Glenn,
Charles Whitman,
Charles Starkweather & Caril Ann Fugate,
Billy Cook,
Jason Todd “JT” Ready,
Robert Stewart,
Devan Kalathat,
Steven Kazmierczak,
Charles Carl Roberts IV,
Terry Ratzmann,
Charles “Andy” Williams,
Byran Uyesugi,
Mark Barton,
Kip Kinkel,
Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13,
James Edward Pough,
Do I need to keep going?
Let’s skip the children, like Dylan and Eric, as it was already illegal for them to have guns. Making it “double illegal” probably wouldn’t have changed anything.
You didn’t answer my question, though. You’ve listed a bunch of “wrong people,” but you haven’t given me anything that can be used to “define” them.
If my friend Glenn from across the street wants to buy a gun from me, and I’m willing to do a background check.. what, in your opinion, are the things that I should use to decide whether or not he can buy the gun?
By the way, do you think that Jonathan Agee should have been given a gun?
Just from the list I offered (and I can go on if needed), I think it is clear that there is no one answer for “the wrong people”. That was my point. From teens too young to purchase guns to mature permit carrying citizens or trained law officers, there are millions who should not be allowed in the same vicinity as a gun. Your preferred answer is to wait for the crime and punish it mine is to work to stop it from happening. Yours might be 100% effective at punishing but does nothing to stop the death and destruction it brings. I do not accept that as the best we can or should do. If you are not concerned for the death and mayhem your solution offers, do not expect me to be concerned over the inconvenience my solution offers.
I think a lot of law enforcement officers should not be allowed near guns, alcohol or their spouses, but that is a different conversation.
#134 I will admit to not defining my terms accurately. The NRA did indeed fight the 1987 Brady Act, primarily due it’s onerous 5 day waiting period. Also it’s extension to long arms, and forcing the states to conduct the checks.
Indeed, the NRA succeeded in having the 5 day waiting period “sunsetting” in 1998, replaced by the NICS, the instant background check. It is the latter to which I meant to refer. Also, in 1997 SCOTUS found the requirment of the states to do the checks unconstitutional.
http://nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2007/nics-legislative-efforts.aspx?s=instant+background+check&st=&ps=
http://nraila.org/search.aspx?s=instant background check
So, the question is, Jonathan Agee committed a vicious murder. Let’s go back to when the decision was made to give him a gun… should they have not given it to him, and why?
If you can’t wait until after something happens, you need to have some defined criteria to use “before” it happens… you cannot just go on your gut feeling, because if I can’t get a gun based on your gut feeling, I’ll just to to the next person’s gut.
I’m giving you a chance to make up and offer any criteria you can come up with. Just remember, a blanket ban is already determined to be Unconstitutional. So please offer the criteria which, in your perfect world, would be used.
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong.. I just want to know what it is since you seem to know, but have a hard time getting it passed.
Registrations won’t work, because criminals can remove serial numbers. Background checks are only a partial solution because they don’t predict the future… so.. what is it?
Jack, there is no perfect solution, but what we have now is also unacceptable in a lawful, peaceable society. You are already well aware of my position as this is not a new discussion. I have said repeatedly we have to follow the gun. We have to register guns and require a background check on every gun transaction. We have to make getting caught with a filed off serial number gun as bad as being found with a dead body. We have to make straw purchases a crime no one is willing to commit. We have to make criminals in possession of guns never see the light of day again. We have to make people with “permits” or training in law enforcement ten times more accountable than those without either. We have to follow the gun and hold people accountable all along the way. If the deaths and mayhem are an acceptable collateral damage to your right to bear arms, that is your choice. It does not mean we have to accept it.
@Sandi: “I have said repeatedly we have to follow the gun.”
If it has no serial number, how do you propose it be followed?
@Sandi: “We have to make getting caught with a filed off serial number gun as bad as being found with a dead body.”
By the way… again, this is AFTER it has been filed off.
@Sandi: “If the deaths and mayhem are an acceptable collateral damage to your right to bear arms…”
People who create death and mayhem do not have the right to have the firearm, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
Over & over again it’s been shown states with pro gun laws have lower crime rates & the reverse.
Over & over again it’s been shown that criminals will not obey gun laws, by definition.
Over & over again history has shown that the precursor to gun confiscation is gun registration.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Thomas Jefferson.
“Let the Constitution never to be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their arms.”, Samuel Adams.
“The great object is that every man be armed.”, Patrick Henry.
You cannot peddle those rotten fish.
Again, I did not say my idea was perfect but it catches more guns before they are used in a crime than what we are doing now. Which is the goal of lowering the death and mayhem. What I am getting at is that gun advocates find the collateral damage acceptable as long as they are not “infringed” when the reality is that they are already infringed and the damage is not acceptable.
If just getting caught with a gun with a filed off serial number is a serious crime, why wait till another crime is committed? If just having an unregistered gun is a crime, no other crime has to be committed for us to act. If selling a gun without a background check is a crime, no other crime needs to be committed for us to act. Follow the gun and the unlawful activity and leave the non-criminal, non law breaking gun owners alone.
Some people really do live in fear. Thanks for that poignant reminder Jim Lucas. Of course it is all a trick to confiscate your guns, the death and mayhem are all just a ruse.
Over & over again it’s been shown that “correlation is not causation”.
I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence–it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. ~Gary Kleck
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
#148 You’re right, it is a ruse. [And] my guns have never been used to cause “death and mayhem”.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/gun-ownership-up-crime-down.html
You have repeatedly told us of your assertiveness, your opionated personality. You can bet that when the government decides “citizens” guns must be confiscated, you will be on the list.
Paranoid? Tell it to those in Canada, Britian, Australia…..California, New York. Not to mention Cuba, Russia….Nazi germany. Many, many more. The history of protecting one’s rights are not on your side.
Well the history of being able to defend your rights against a national army are not on your side, so it appears we are more than even. I believe in the power of the Constitution and our nation of laws. You believe in your guns and we will see what comes of that.
#151 “Well the history of being able to defend your rights against a national army are not on your side…”
Is that your arguement? Let the government have weapons to use against unarmed citizens so as to capitualte? Tell it to the Syrians.
As to; “I believe in the power of the Constitution and our nation of laws.” This is bizzare. The Constitution upholds our right to be armed, and “laws” are whatever those in power say they are without the Constitution.
@Sandi: “Again, I did not say my idea was perfect but it catches more guns before they are used in a crime than what we are doing now.”
Likely taking away every gun from every person would likely achieve similar results.
@Sandi: “If just getting caught with a gun with a filed off serial number is a serious crime, why wait till another crime is committed?”
It is a serious crime. I believe it is a felony, but don’t quote me on that.
The only time I’ve ever had non-serialized guns in my hands was when I was doing some consulting work at popular manufacturer’s factory. I won’t say who, though, for privacy reasons. However, I will say that the part of the factory with the not (yet) serialized guns had additional security in place and everything going in and out was tracked.
It’s a serious crime, though, to have a gun without a serial number.
@Sandi: “Follow the gun and the unlawful activity and leave the non-criminal, non law breaking gun owners alone.”
If you want us to register our guns, then you aren’t leaving us alone.
@Sandi: “Of course it is all a trick to confiscate your guns, the death and mayhem are all just a ruse.”
I’m sure that’s what they were saying in Louisiana a few years ago… right before the government came in force and took them all away… from the law-abiding citizens, at least. Not the criminals. They got to keep theirs since the government didn’t know about them.
@Sandi: “I believe in the power of the Constitution and our nation of laws. You believe in your guns and we will see what comes of that.”
I believe in both. I am a Fourth Amendment advocate as much (if not more) than Second Amendment. I’ve dabbled a bit lately in Fifth Amendment, too, after a few recent cases involving 5A piqued my interest.
#153 @Sandi: ‘“Follow the gun and the unlawful activity and leave the non-criminal, non law breaking gun owners alone.”’
“If you want us to register our guns, then you aren’t leaving us alone.”
Not only that, but once you don’t register, you are a criminal. That’s some catch that catch-22.
Pardon me Jim Lucas, “that” appeared to be YOUR argument. Did I misunderstand what #146 and #150 said too? And you think my words are “bizarre”?
NO, I do not believe you believe in the Constitution or the laws. Not for one second do I believe that.
#155 Huh?
#156 Huh?!
@81 The video shows black, African American kids fighting. That is a factual statement. If you think stating the obvious is racist then you are an ignorant, oblivious popinjay!! You should pull your head out of your behind clean your eyes and ears and take in a strong dose of reality.
Must have hit a nerve Richard! If I knew where your head even was, I’d advise you the same Maloof.
BTW, yes, “The video shows black, African American kids fighting. That is a factual statement“. That was not however, what was said, to prompt Richard’s or my reaction. If you think “stating the obvious”, after the damage is done and declaring what was already said as someone else’s problem, it does make me wonder about the location of your head.