Previous Post
Next Post

“It shouldn’t have went that far. Anyone can see that. It’s how you take it. It was principle. He wouldn’t give my friend $5, even though he’d lost a $5 bet. . . . I ain’t violent. I just got caught up in it. I thought if I’d killed him, everything would have been cool. There would be no witness. I wouldn’t have been caught. Now I’m happy he didn’t die. . . . Right now I’m not thinking of killing anyone. I don’t think like that. I don’t want to hurt anyone. And I don’t want to get locked up.” – Leonard in Teens with guns teetering between two worlds [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “I thought if I’d killed him, everything would have been cool.”

    Found yur’ problem.

  2. You wanted him dead for $5 but you “don’t want to hurt anyone.”
    They have a problem with paint chips in PA?

    • Here in pa, we don’t have a problem with paint chips BUT I do think there is something in the water.

  3. This journalist needs to do some fact-checking. Under PA law, it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun.

    These boys having guns is illegal and therefore impossible.

    This “journalist” is trying to tell me that even though PA law has BANNED handguns for those under 21, criminal teenagers are still willing to buy them WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK from OTHER CRIMINALS on the street and MURDER people, which has also been BANNED. Yeah right! All that stuff is illegal.

    Make a law, and it can’t happen anymore!

    • But… but…. that’s unpossible!

      We need a law that makes breaking the first law illegal. Then we can send them to jail twice! That will teach them to not break the laws about breaking the laws.

    • Its illegal to buy handguns when under 21 from a store in PA, its not illegal to do a private transfer from 18+. All handguns traded in PA (unless from family to family) have to go through a PICS check though. So theoreticlly, someone whos 18 can purchase a handgun privately.

    • Nah, he’ll get probation. After all, it’s not his fault he didn’t have enough “opportunity” or “access.” It’s true what they say: not getting a subsidized laptop and free internet directly leads to shooting other people in the face with a stolen gun.

      –Posted from my Obamaphone.

  4. After reading the artivle I am now confused… Why are we concerned about illegal guns that could be solved by current laws that we do not enforce? This mentality has existed in the “hood” since the “hood” existed. Nothing has or ever will change that. Enforce current laws as they are written and it MIGHT quell some of this violence. Why didnt they track this big bad .32 Beretta back to the guy that sold it to a teenager?

    • If they enforced the current laws and proved they worked then they couldnt pass new laws to disarm the people.

  5. As long as these kids can make money selling drugs, see their friends making money selling drugs, scrounging around for a pair of shoes is going to seem like pointless sacrifice. “The game” pays more cash than being a barista at starbucks.

    • The single mother/welfare culture has created tribes of savages. Relative wages have nothing to do with it. Most people who lack “opportunity” don’t turn to crime. Your mindless economic determinism underpins the modern welfare state. “If we just give them enough money then we will buy civil peace.” Poverty doesn’t cause crime, crime cause poverty. The savages provide a useful service to the Nomenklatura. They keep the masses in line and voting Democratic. It’s called the blue social model where the Kleptocracy and the their welfare clients feed off of the ever shrinking productive class.

      • “Poverty doesn’t cause crime, crime cause poverty.”

        Indeed. What’s wrong with this individual and his cohort isn’t their immediate surroundings, but the base assumptions in their head – the culture they adhere to.

      • that’s one point of view. Another is that after we repealed prohibition, crime went down about 40% within 4 years. It just so happens that Black and Hispanic gangs control the drug supply today and heavily recruit in poor neighborhoods. A kid in a suburban neighborhood who thinks that they have a shot to get an MBA and make 250k is not as easily recruited as one in a poor neighborhood (and, incidentally, many of them go on to be “white collar” criminals). I think that you are partly correct that there is an incentive to collect “Obamabucks” … but what exactly is the alternative? A minimum wage job as a cashier at target? Have you seen how many college kids want weed? It’s a business, pure and simple.

        • “I think that you are partly correct that there is an incentive to collect “Obamabucks” … but what exactly is the alternative? A minimum wage job as a cashier at target?”

          You’re assuming the initial point; begging the question.

          I grew up with plenty of people who’s most likely, and ultimately actual, fate was a dead-end position at Walmart. I myself at certain positions in life have had to choose between eating and paying rent. None of us decided to deal drugs for easy cash, despite knowing where we could go to start – to say nothing of shooting someone in the face over an unpaid fin.

          The problem here is cultural – the belief that anything bad that happens is not your fault, and anything good that happens comes from someone else. It is not environmental.

        • [Late EDIT] The business skills and inventiveness that some of these individuals display is also exactly what would be required to succeed in the real world. It’s not true to say that they are automatically doomed to cashier-dom at Target.

        • I think your statistics are a bit off. Bruce Kraft posted a piece a while back that showed homicide rates over time. The rate rose rapidly prior to 1920, peaked before prohibition ended and was already declining when it was repealed. The fall in the homicide rate was more a reflection of the consolidation and nationalization of organized crime not the end of Prohibition. The peak in the homicide rate at end of the 1920s was simply the cartel taking out the holdouts. Organized crime expanded its reach after the end of Prohibition. Its power and influence peaked in the late 1960s. They managed to do this without the help of Prohibition.

          The latest peak in the homicide rate occurred in the early 90’s and has dropped off in the past twenty years. Once again it was not the legalization of drugs, oh that’s right drugs haven’t been legalized, that caused the drop but the emergence of a new organized criminal establishment. Had the Justice Department not been successful in taking down the Mafia in the late 1970s and early 80s there would have been no big spike in the homicide rate since they would have continued to control the illegal drug trade.

          The Libertarian “drugs explain it all” meme is as defective and mindless as the gun grabbers approach to solving the violence problem in American society. Endemic violence in the welfare centered inner cities is caused by a break down in the social order. In a way, the ghetto is organized around Libertarian lines. The writ of the government ends with the welfare check and an occasional encounter with the police. Much of the so-called violence in the inner cities stems from violations of the existing social norms and codes. What people living in normal civil society identify as lawless behavior is in fact an enforcement of unwritten laws by the elites as a matter of justice. This problem will not go away until civil society is reestablished in the inner cities. Unfortunately instead of trying to reestablish civil society in the inner cities Progressives and Libertarians are bent on tearing down the fundamental social institutions in the rest of society and expanding the social norms of the ghetto to entire society.

        • The homicide rate peaked in 1933. Here are the actual figures:
          year, rate per 100k
          1906 3.9
          1907 4.9
          1908 4.8
          1909 4.2
          1910 4.6
          1911 5.5
          1912 5.4
          1913 6.1
          1914 6.2
          1915 5.9
          1916 6.3
          1917 6.9
          1918 6.5
          1919 7.2
          1920 6.8
          1921 8.1
          1922 8.0
          1923 7.8
          1924 8.1
          1925 8.3
          1926 8.4
          1927 8.4
          1928 8.6
          1929 8.4
          1930 8.8
          1931 9.2
          1932 9.0
          1933 9.7
          1934 9.5
          1935 8.3
          1936 8.0
          1937 7.6
          1938 6.8
          1939 6.4
          1940 6.3

          there was a wartime prohibition on beverages with alcohol over 2.75% enacted in 1918.

          homicide peaked in 1933, and declined 30% by 1938.

          source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, pt1-9 p414 (census bureau)

          I dont think that the Drug War explains 100% of crime, but certainly a good 40% of it. The rate of drug use in the US is significantly higher than in Europe.

        • I guess I misread Bruce graph as to the peak year but I will note that the homicide rate did not return to its pre-prohibition rate until 5 years after the repeal of the Volstead Act. So why did gangsters continue to kill each other over a legal product?

        • prohibition was repealed at the federal level in 1933, but not every state followed. pre-WWI there was a patchwork of laws, and post-1934 individual states remained dry, particularly in the south. The mob controlled every speakeasy in 1933 in Chicago, so that influence does not die easily. Try opening up a bar next to one of the Mob’s speakeasies.

          If pot is decriminalized at the federal level, it will be interesting to see what crime does in individual states that decriminalize pot, vs those that lag behind. Heroin, cocaine, and prostitution, will remain big businesses, but not nearly as big as pot.

        • Exactly my point. Making a previously illegal activity legal doesn’t turn criminals, especially those who are organized, into choir boys. The Mafia controlled the wholesale liquor trade until its collapse in the late 70’s/early 80s. Organized crime can get control of many legal activities. Ever hear of the Cheese Wars? The mob sought a monopoly on the distribution of cheese for pizza parlors. It was as bloody as anything during Prohibition. And let’s not forget that the Mob controlled legal gambling and prostitution in Nevada until the Feds broke them. I suggest you read both “Goodfellas” and Casino (instead of just watching the movies) to see how organized crime does business with erstwhile legal activities. The gangs were there before the Mafia was broken and they will be there after drugs are legalized.

  6. TO: All
    RE: Root-Cause Analysis, Anyone?

    All this murder and mayhem is because these people are Godless. They have no moral code. Indeed, they are amoral.

    Theory has it that 1 in 5 is an amoral monster who only holds it in because they are afraid they’ll be caught. JUST LIKE THIS ONE!


    [The Truth will out….be prepared, because when society breaks down, these monsters will behave like so many Reavers.]

  7. TO: All
    RE: What Can You Expect….

    ….from a bunch of Godless monsters?

    They have no morals….this proverbial ‘generation of vipers’. Indeed. One in five are amoral. The only thing that keeps them ‘in line’ is the fear of being caught and punished.

    This character is just a classic example. The lies about not wanting to hurt anyone are just CYA dust in our eyes.


    [Be Prepared….because when society breaks down these monsters will be on the loose like so many Reavers.]

    P.S. I’ll wager that these cops that keep killing innocent people are just as amoral……

      • Sean,

        Agreed. I’m a gun toting Atheist with firm 1-10A beliefs. Suffer from rigorous honestly a a good set of morals. I thank my Dad for that.

        It’s amazing what parents can do.

        • TO: orion
          RE: It Takes….WHAT?

          Agreed. I’m a gun toting Atheist with firm 1-10A beliefs. Suffer from rigorous honestly a a good set of morals. I thank my Dad for that. — orion

          Hillary claimed ‘It Takes a Village’ to raise a child.

          The State is her ideal of a ‘village’. However, as witnessed in articles like this, it’s an abject failure at raising children. This, despite the ever increasing calls for parents to surrender their children to the State.

          Face it the State is a Godless structure.

          In truth it really takes ‘parents’, i.e., a Man and a Woman to raise a child….properly. But the State keeps pushing for single mothers. Has been for fifty years now. And look at the result.

          We didn’t have Columbines, Aurora Theaters, Sandy Hooks fifty years ago. Now we’re inundated with such.

          Hence my observation that this is all because of the Godless nation we have become.


          [Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. — Robert Winthorp, Speaker of the House]

          P.S. Which do you think is more effective? That a man control himself? Or that the State control him?

          P.P.S. When was the last time you watched THX-1138?

      • Sean, while it may not have a monopoly, it’s an excellent source of instruction.

        As an atheistic scientist, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who consciously tries to adhere to a christian lifestyle and would likely welcome them as a neighbor. Nor is belief in a god and adherence to a religion prima facie evidence of stupidity, as is bandied about by the self-styled “enlightened”.

        • I have no problem if a person freely chooses to follow a set of beliefs, but to act like religion has a monopoly on morality is false.

          I wouldn’t call the old testament or some parts of the new testament exactly moral for today’s world either.

        • “I wouldn’t call the old testament or some parts of the new testament exactly moral for today’s world either.”

          If you believe that, then I suggest you take a second look and ask yourself what those passages were trying to accomplish; what actual, mechanistic effects they have. Put them in context with the central idea: the fellowship of man; that all men are brothers and harming your brother injures yourself. They aren’t matters of fashion, even if they’ve become unfashionable.

        • TO: Human Being
          RE: Indeed

          Put them [the commandments of Jesus Christ] in context with the central idea: the fellowship of man; that all men are brothers and harming your brother injures yourself. — Human Being

          What He told His disciples, i.e., followers, was (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor as you love yourself.

          Not a bad start, eh?

          They aren’t matters of fashion, even if they’ve become unfashionable. — Human Being

          Those ideals were ‘fashionable’ amongst US at one time. But not any more.

          Hence we have characters like the one described in this article.


          [God builds His temples in the hearts of men, on the ruins of churches and religions.]

      • TO: Sean
        RE: Au Contraire [Pardon my French]

        The greatest mass murderers in the world have been atheists. And VAST MAJORITY of our own trouble makers are atheists as well: Klebold & Harris (Columbine), Lanza (Sandy Hook), Holmes (Aurora Theater)…..I can go on and on.

        All it takes to push an atheist to commit murder. The right kind of ‘push’. Most likely something very personal to them. Something that makes them so ‘mad’ that they don’t care about other people.

        On the other hand, Christians—the REAL kind, not those that merely call themselves such, but really aren’t—remember that there will be a final accounting. And THAT tends to stop them from committing murderous acts. Or even the smaller crimes; remember the Ten Commandments.

        Hope that helps….


        [What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions.]

        P.S. I’m reminded by a Paulian epistle that there ARE some people that follow those ideals and they are a law unto God’s approval. Soooo…good on you and others who follow that code of conduct.

        • Those “greatest mass murderers” basically replaced religion with another set of beliefs that had to be adhered to without question. And over the years, Christianity and other religions have been plenty useful for inspiring mass carnage. Islam still seems to be doing the trick now.

          And if atheists are so violent and unstable as you say, why are they such a hugely under-represented group in prisons?

        • TO: CarlosT
          RE: Over the Years

          And over the years, Christianity and other religions have been plenty useful for inspiring mass carnage. — CarlosT

          People who do not do God’s will, e.g., mass murder, are not, repeat NOT, Christians. They are like those today who call themselves ‘Christians’, but certainly are NOT.


          [A tree is known by its ‘fruit’. — Christ]

        • TO: CarlosT
          RE: The Prison Population

          And if atheists are so violent and unstable as you say, why are they such a hugely under-represented group in prisons? — CarlosT

          Probably because they aren’t honest-to-God Christians.

          Seriously…..why would a REAL Christian commit a crime of violence? Or robbery?

          Just because someone calls themselves a ‘Christian’ doesn’t mean they are. After all, Clinton called himself a ‘centerist’. Godless types, like Clinton, lie.

          Please refer to the tagline of my previous reply to you.


          [Evil has many tools. And a lie is the handle that fits them all.]

        • “And over the years, Christianity and other religions have been plenty useful for inspiring mass carnage. Islam still seems to be doing the trick now.”

          CarlosT, this is too small a format to give a proper rebuttal, but suffice it to say that you really can’t throw Islam and Christianity into the same bucket in the first place. They have diametric approaches to human relations. It would take far too much space to fully elaborate, but a simple example is the difference between Christianity saying “thou shalt not kill; turn the other cheek when struck” and Islam saying “thou shalt not kill…unless you are attacked first”. The former sets a barrier for lethal action of breaking with your own beliefs, the latter merely asks for a rationalized excuse – hence Churchill’s quote about “bloody borders”.

          As to Christianity being used to inspire mass carnage, that too would take too much space to rebut – but has been much twisted and inflated in recent decades. If you look into them, they aren’t what the authors are claiming (defaming?). The two biggest examples I can think of are the Crusades and forced conversion of Mesoamerica. The Crusades were a counter-attack against an aggressive, invading, potentially-annihilating culture. The Spanish rule of Central and South America were brutal, but have you ever looked into what the Aztecs and Incas were forced to convert *away* from? The consecration of a new Incan temple involved a week long ceremony with a murder committed roughly every five minutes – this inside a continent with every city at war with every other as they tried to pry victims from other peoples rather than suffer the unrest of the citizenry knowing it would be them on the altars. Before the Spaniards, the Inca literaly “drank their beer from the skulls of their victims”, and Dia de los Muertos is a pretty, Disney-fied version of what the Aztecs celebrated.

        • “P.S. I’m reminded by a Paulian epistle that there ARE some people that follow those ideals and they are a law unto God’s approval.”

          Chuck Pelto, can you cite the location of that?

        • TO: Human Being
          RE: Reference

          Chuck Pelto, can you cite the location of that? — Human Being

          For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

          Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

          — Romans 2:14-15

          I see this as certain atheists, who have the Law in their hearts and minds, as being ‘justified’. Not that I am God to judge them….it’s not part of my duty description. But I suspect they are on the right path. I’ll let God decide between them and me.


          [The Truth will out….one way or another. I just hope it helps someone….]

        • TO: Human Being
          RE: Heh

          THIS is the grace of God made manifest amongst Men.

          Those who behave the way God intended men to behave amongst men are on the right path. They only lack one think…..

          ….to recognize God for Whom He is. And therein lies the proverbial problem of ‘pride’.

        • @Carlos


          REMEMBER we are all human. It doesn’t matter what belief system we learn and/or choose to live by. We humans have a tendency to corrupt systems for our own benefit. In some cases, we get Christians, who while they mean good, are acting on a corrupted version of the real Christian belief system (i.e. God seeks a relationship with man, but man chose to walk away. Thus Christianity is about the relationship with God, NOT adhering to a bunch of rules.

          Without faith, we can’t please God. Faith without works is dead. It is the faith that inspires the works. Many have got it stuck in their heads that they must work to get to heaven. OOPS, they are in error.

          Many Christians who know the Bible seem to forget John 3:17 – Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, but to save it. Those who preach condemnation have made a serious mistake. (i.e. “You’re gonna burn in hell for your evil ways!” is the wrong approach (The only time Jesus acted THAT way was when he had to deal with the religious leaders of His time on earth who claimed to know the right way but never adhered to it), while it should be more of a “Hey, check this out! It’s a better way to live!”)

          Humans are fallible. A human can be corrupted fairly easy when power is involved. It doesn’t matter if the power is secular or religious. Those who haven’t been corrupted either haven’t hit that level of power that steals them, or they have help in resisting by others resisting or by God’s assistance.

          As to your comment about atheists in prison, how many got “religion” after entering the system? How many claim it, yet know nothing about its beliefs? How many are, but had a catastrophic failure that landed them there?

          Lastly… The Qur’an and the Bible teach some things VERY differently. Islam believes the Bible is corrupted. They believe Jesus was just a prophet and mere man. While attributed to extremist, the Qur’an advocates the execution of the infidel (unbeliever), The real extremist in Islam is the one who denounces that part. The Bible doesn’t. (Any case of a “Christian” killing those who refuse Christianity is the sole responsibility of the individual. WHA??? The Bible supports individual responsibility? Yup.


  8. So wait, if I willfully do something incredibly stupid with full knowledge that it is wrong and illegal, and I happen to get caught and face punishment for it, I still get to be a victim?

    • TO: Don
      RE: Heh

      ….if I willfully do something incredibly stupid with full knowledge that it is wrong and illegal, and I happen to get caught and face punishment for it, I still get to be a victim? — Don

      Only if you are politically correct and/or have ‘connections’.


      [Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny, they have only shifted it to another shoulder. — George Bernard Shaw]

  9. I’m now in support of providing free abortions to women who can’t afford one and paying women to voluntarily get free sterilization.

    • Unfortunately, that won’t fly when the welfare system still pays you to pop out kids.

    • That was the original idea behind Planned Parenthood, keep the “undesirables” from breeding. Ugly truth that isn’t acknowledged today.

      • TO: Old Ben turning in grave
        RE: Heh

        The age old approach to dealing with the ‘inconvenient’…..

        ….KILL THEM!

        Many atheists have done that in the past: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.

        Doesn’t matter if they have been declared by the Supremes as not quite ‘human’. And I’ve seen reports of late where some want mothers to murder their own children AFTER their birth.

        Soon, we’ll see approval of anyone considered ‘inconvenient’, i.e., because of their ‘views’ as eligible for ‘abortion’, i.e., murder.


        [Be Prepared…..]

        P.S. The Three D’s of Persecution:

        [1] Demonize
        [2] Disarm
        [3] Destroy

        • That leads me to the question:

          WHY is it murder when someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the unborn child, yet (renaming it a fetus) the same woman can legally have it aborted (and it NOT be murder)?

    • How ironic that a Jew advocates the same policies proposed by a Nazi sympathizer like Margaret Sanger. Sanger included Jews as one of the inferior groups who should be put on the extinction list.

      • TO: tdiinva
        RE: A ‘Jew’?

        How ironic that a Jew advocates the same policies proposed by a Nazi sympathizer like Margaret Sanger. — tdiinva

        There’s more to being a ‘Jew’ than merely a name presented on a blog comment.

        Indeed. The sort of ‘Jew’ that put Obama in the Oval Office is like someone who calls themselves a Christian and supports the murder of the unborn.


        [The Truth will out….and the un-Godly are NOT going to like it…..]

        P.S. TO: The ‘Atheists’ Here

        Do you support abortion?

        If so, then you’re as guilty of ‘mass murder’ as any of the infamous atheists of the 20th Century.

        50+ MILLION murdered since Roe v. Wade. THAT is as many as all the totalitarian mass murderer heads of state of the 20th Century.

        OWN IT!

      • There are many who are Jew by heritage, yet know nothing of that heritage and its beliefs or have turned their back on it altogether. They live in denial and/or ignorance and thus, act no different than those around them (in some cases, the very ones that may wish to see their demise, or want the same tactics that worked so well in the past against Jews on others.)

    • Like the punk in Georgia that shot a baby in the face in front of his mother. Threatened to do it, mother begged him not to, he did it anyway. In cold blood.

      There are monsters among us. Perhaps the inner city institutions are creating more of them than their otherwise would be, but there have always been and probably always will be monsters among us. They look just like we do, and they act just like we do, right up until the moment they shoot a baby.

      If the grabbers want to spin this as proof that we need more gun control, I can’t stop them. As for me, I’ll keep my arms. If some monster threatens my children, I’ll do more than beg him not to. And when it comes time for my kids to have children, they will be able to say the same.

    • TO: Ted
      RE: Parenting Efforts

      Stories like this make me go home and double-down on my parenting efforts. — Ted

      GO TO!


      [ 9 For they [instructions from thy parents] shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck. — Proverbs]

      P.S. I’m intrigued by the concept of ‘chains about thy neck’. It speaks of several ideas: (1) chains of gold and (2) chains of restraint.

      Keep up the Go[o]d work…..

  10. Here’s a quote from the article that really sums it all up:

    “Leonard and Allen hear two sets of voices: their moms, street workers, probation officers and teachers”

    Who is missing from the list?

    If black men are going to knock up the women and then leave them and their children to fend for themselves, then their offspring will never be better than the sperm donors who created them.

    • Ralph, I can’t agree with everything you say on this site, but this time you get a +1. And we have the same problem in the UK too. We call them ‘Feckless fathers’.

Comments are closed.