Roger ChesleyDid he really just take a swing at me?
It was 30 years ago, spring 1978, and I was leaving the indoor basketball courts at the University of Maryland in suburban D.C. A guy from the other team - which had lost when I'd sunk the winning hoop - approached me as I was leaving the gym.
"You undercut me!" he shouted. "Let's go!" he added, challenging me to a fight.
Good thing it was 1978, and not 2008. Otherwise, my opponent might have had a gun.
That's one of the overwhelming differences between an earlier generation and today's. Before, taunts, threats and fistfights were the worst thing young men faced when they had beefs on the court, on the street, in a club. Nowadays, though, you never know who's packing a gun - or if they're looking to use it.
Confrontations three decades ago never seemed to amount to much. Sore jaws, puffy eyes or wounded feelings were the limit. Not death.
Back then, you could cool off. You still can today, too, but you might be in a holding cell, facing a murder charge and the grieving, revenge-seeking relatives of your victim.
It was the reality of gun violence - and its results - that drew hundreds of people to South Norfolk on Thursday night. Called by top Chesapeake city officials, the meeting at Bethany Baptist Church sought solutions to the current problems of guns, drugs and gangs.
The meeting occurred after two shooting deaths on the same day last week in Chesapeake, within a few miles of each other. At 2:30 a.m. July 1, Lonnie Andrews Jr., 18, was killed near the home where he grew up. Around 1 p.m., Dontrell Whitehurst, 26, was killed.
The killing of Andrews has received more attention because of his age and promising future. Popular with classmates, the recent Oscar Smith High School graduate was headed to Virginia State University on a football scholarship. A 17-year-old male, an Oscar Smith student, has been charged in Andrews' slaying.
Here's where I make all the gun rights people crazy: Despite the few details that have emerged about the case, there's every reason to think that - minus the gun - Lonnie Andrews would be alive today.
("But guns don't kill people; people kill people!" Yeah, but in most cases, the people have guns.)
Chesapeake police have said little so far about the case. They acknowledge that some type of altercation preceded Andrews' death, but it's unclear who it was between, what it was about, and whether that was the motive for the shooting. Andrews had been at a dance at Janelle's Center for the Youth about a half hour before he was shot. Police declined to comment on the gun used in the killing, or whether it had been recovered.
("Criminals won't obey the law, and everybody else will be sitting ducks without their own guns!" activists say. But was the 17-year-old suspect a "criminal" before this incident? Did easy access to a gun lead to a series of events that had only one outcome?)
I don't blame it all on the guns. If we valued life, if we loved each other, if we had proper guidance in the home, we wouldn't so easily end the lives of others. So many social ills are catalysts for violence. But the presence of guns, especially easy-to-tote handguns, makes the situation infinitely worse.
Thirty years ago, walking off a basketball court, I got punched in the face. Thankfully, he didn't have a gun. Thankfully, I didn't have one, either.
Roger Chesley is associate editor of The Virginian-Pilot's editorial page. Reach him at (757) 446-2329 or at roger. chesley@pilotonline.com.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Other things to worry about...
There seems to be a big difference in the morals of society from back then until now. I don't date back too far though....as I was only born in the late 70's. Even through my childhood though, when fights were fought, most were "one on one" and fair. Once one person hit the ground and gave in...it was over. Now and days, the fights seem to be more "multiple on one" and when someone goes down...they get kicked and stomped as well. This type of behavior is just as common as someone pulling a gun in the author's type of situation. Wasn't it only a few years back, guy at 7-11 on Newtown got jumped by two others. I believe it was a 9 week coma and severe brain damage...still rehabbing to this day. All for what...a few dollars this guy had. The assailants felt the urge to keep beating this guy even though they had the money and he was out cold on the ground. Until we actually punish those who act like this, it will continue to go on. I mean really...how is a year or two at a state owned 4 star hotel (prison) followed by probation (don't need to say much about this one) suppose to deter people from crime?
I carry a gun. I carry one because the reality is that
criminals have guns. If you make it illegal for me to have a gun, the criminals will STILL have guns. It is already illegal to use a gun to commit a crime. Taking guns away from people who don't commit crimes will do NOTHING to stop crime, and will indeed make it easier for criminals to commit them. It's amazing the things you need to believe to support gun control. As if a criminal, who plans to go rob a store, (which is already illegal) just decided on his way there that he couldn't rob the store because he had a gun, and now he'll just go borrow or earn the money he wants. Are you kidding? We don't need gun control. We need CRIMINAL control. If the citizens of this country saw the criminal histories of some of the people walking around out here, there would be a revolution. And don't give me the "We already have too many people locked up" argument. It doesn't wash. We do have too many people in jail, but they're there because they did it. If we need more jails, build them. You can let a jail sit empty if you don't need it anymore as a reminder to what happens when your actions are CRIMINAL.
wthout guns
Yes, blessedly gun-free DC in '78.....189 murders.....
under age????
Let me see....... 11 years in the Navy now and I know for a fact that there have been a lot of 17 year olds to join. So if your old enough to fight for your freedoms your old enough to live and act like an adult. That would mean that you would have to act and take responsibility like an adult and that if you did something dump you would be treated as you did something dumb. Yup that is the case.!!
Oh yeah we live in America, that means that people are sheeple and they can only think the way they have been told to think.
Most Law abiding citizens don't use guns to fire at will. But, most idiots that thank that they will fight to get guns out of all hands and it will solve all proplems. LOL. I will be the first to tell them that individuals that don't follow the law will have guns.
WELL THANK GOD FOR THE SECOND ADMIDMENT :-) AND THE SAPREAME COURT TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!
Where do you people live
that you are afraid to go out your house unless you carry a gun and feel you have to sleep with one under your pillow. It must be painful to live life afraid all the time.
More laws when the current ones aren't working?
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure there are laws against 17-year-olds carrying handguns... so, yes, the killer was a criminal, and, no, more gun laws won't work if the current ones aren't being enforced anyway.
I also love how you use the second person to indict us all, as if we all shared in your obvious lack of personal responsibility and unwillingness to accept the burden self-control.
Ah, wonderful 1978...
Mr. Chesley may recall his youth as an elightened age where mem solved their problems in more civilized ways, but FBI crime statistics show that violent crime in the country has dropped by nearly a third since then.
It may feel like crime is far worse, but I suspect our sensationalistic, ratings-driven local news coverage plays a part.
Also, in the ensuing years, black-on-black crime has skyrocketed, with black males (perhaps six percent of the population) committing nearly half the murders in the country.
Tying the problem to gun availability would require us to believe that the majority of guns have migrated from white to black households in the past thirty years or so, which is no more believable than his recollection of 1978 America.
Irresponsible people
also own legal guns. People change, re-register or license on any hand gun of any caliber should be required by law. Safety lessons of use should also be a law. Please don't tell me criminals don't do this, but we have to start where ever we can to enforece some contol on guns. I don't have a gun and don't want a gun, and I'm not so afraid that I have to carry a gun to make me feel safe. If people are so afraid of their surroundings they should move on to another place.
Guns
In your article you ask the question. But was the 17-year-old suspect a "criminal" before this incident?
The answer to your question is yes he was. Per Virginia Law:
ยง 18.2-308.7. Possession or transportation of certain firearms by persons under the age of 18; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person under 18 years of age to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport a handgun or assault firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section, "handgun" means any pistol or revolver or other firearm originally designed, made and intended to fire single or multiple projectiles by means of an explosion of a combustible material from one or more barrels when held in one hand and "assault firearm" means any (i) semi-automatic centerfire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at
sensible gun control
The gun rights mantra is this: we don't want to prevent law abiding citizens from owning a gun.
Determining who is law abiding is the problem. We can do thorough background checks, comprehensive training and effective registration of the gun before we allow ownership. Or, as we more or less allow now, we can let anyone buy a gun from anywhere (gun shows anyone?), then take them away as those who misuse them in crimes get apprehended. Of course, the body count in the second option is a bit inconvenient, but can be useful evidence for conviction.
Why is it so bad to keep track of weapons, who has them and are they trained to handle them? In an increasingly urban society, the unrestricted proliferation of sophisticated firearms is not the same as frontiersmen owning a single shot musket. It may take a generation or two to pare down the 200 million guns freely floating around, but we have to get reason
I see the problem
"Thankfully, I didn't have one, either."
Here it is in a nutshell. You know that you have the inclination to use a gun illegally, therefore you project that criminal predilection, or lack of control, onto others.
Previous posters have discussed my other thoughts as to: underage possession of a firearm; lawful firearms use in self defense (when fisticuffs would have failed); and the attitude that violence is OK as long as it doesn't involve weapons.
Incentives for their guns
It's fine for people to own guns who are mature enough to own them. We are talking about 15-19 year old teenagers that have not even grasped the concept of a working class contributing member of society, with that being said, we must offer them something to turn in their guns, MONEY. You set up shop in a police tactical trailer, you put flyers throughout the neigborhood stating, any 15-19 year old that turns in a gun gets a fifty or one hundred dollar bill, no questions asked. If you take 200 guns out of the hands of these reckless immature teenagers, you have not only saved lives, you also have reduced the probability of a violent gun crime being comitted. Go to different crime riddled neighborhoods each month with the program. The financial cost is a small price to pay to save a life and reduce gun crime.
Impulse control
Do you live in a world where young men have no impulse control, and any altercation escalates to a willingness to kill?
I don't. While knives are not exact equivalents to guns, in the Cajun culture I grew up in, every boy was given a knife by his father when he turned eleven. We carried them everywhere we went, school, church, or dates when we got older. As with most young men, there were fights, and ongoing enmity between some, but I never once saw one of those knives come out in the course of a fight. We all had them, but we also had a sense of proportion and knew what level of threat required deadly force and that none of the disputes we had were worth taking, or risking our lives.
If you can't see that distinction, and don't expect it in those with whom you associate, then perhaps you should not carry a gun. But on the other hand, if there are more out there who can't exercise that level of impulse control, t
Wrong...
And how do you explain the three or four cases recently, on the Peninsula and Southside, where potential victims were safe and sound BECAUSE of guns? You neglect to mention that.
A criminal goes into a pizza shop with a gun. He's criminal as soon as he decided to rob the place, even before he got there. He challenges the owner, the owner offers him the cash in the register and the criminal chooses to shoot. ANd he died. Good. Bye.
Two incidents in Newport News. Criminals trying to rob people. Both fought back. One criminal is dead. Good. Bye. The other, a 17 year old, has a hole in his leg. Lucky him.
My guns have never killed anyone. Don't blame the guns. Blame the ones who carry them will ill intent. You know... the criminals.
Mr. Chesley
I still have seen no evidence that Lonnie's shooter was carrying legally. If not, all use of this to present a gun control message is off, IMHO. Criminals will have guns regardless of the laws we pass . . . Now if you were to tell me that he had taken gun safety courses, had a concealed carry permit, etc. (all before the age of 18, as I recall), then we would have a story here. Cheers, MGM