Funny that CM Graham is so quick to call for emergency legislation to prevent people under 21 from being in nightclubs, but at the same time, he helped shepherd through legislation that eliminates the 400-ft. rule and allows restaurants to locate directly adjacent to a school. Smooth move CM Graham, way to look out for the children.

Jeff, I must disagree. I was stunned to discover that minors are able to go to dance clubs that serve alcohol. Having 16-yr-olds cavorting with adults drinking alcohol is dangerous and unnecessary.

I agree that the death was tragic regardless of the age of the victim. I don't think that should cloud the perfectly reasonable sentiment that minors shouldn't be exposed to "adult situations."

I am sure a Council member will be able to carve out an exception for music venues, concert halls, etc. The end of "all ages" shows would be an unfortunate consequence. But it's also a consequence that I'd live with if it meant keeping young whippersnappers away from cocktails.

Agreed. How would the local hipsters groom the next generation if they can't get into Black Cat and 9:30 Club shows.

But seriously, it's not like similar tragedies haven't occurred at local bars/clubs that served only 21+. So this would seem to be more of a political solution rather than a practical one.

Though as I read the Post article, it's only for clubs that serve liquor. I suppose a club could just switch to beer only (which is not liquor) and skirt the law.

As for the snow. I try not to hate SUV drivers, really I do. But a lot of you were driving like assholes last night. Also to the guy two cars (including my friend's) almost plowed over on M Street: Just because cars are driving slow doesn't make it safer to run in front of us. PS -- You left your scarf in the middle of the road. Idiot.

I agree with jeff. Would we rather send teenagers to a club with responsible bar staff not serving them, or send them to a high school house party where they'd be inevitably driving home drunk anyway?

I'm kind of surprised that club's serving liquor are even allowed to let in people under 18. Maybe I'm just still used to New England blue laws or something.

To the question of how this will affect the teen experience. As I seem to recall, the struggle to "let the kids in" was central to a lot of 80's hardcore. Maybe if venues like the 9:30 or the Black Cat stop being all ages, teens will create a whole new scene like they did back then.

"I just have a problem with banning teenagers from all the activities that make young people's lives worthwhile."

I never attended a single club or concert (excluding Kris Kross in 4th grade) until I was 18. I admit that's lame, but I would argue that I still had a worthwhile adolescence.

Cape Cod has a place called "The Juice Bar" in Orleans. Caters to the high school crowd. They have concerts, dances, all that stuff. No alcohol and it keeps kids away from alcohol and skeevy adults. It's very, very popular. Same with the "Rock Nights" at the local skating rink. I think it's silly to pretend that there aren't alternatives to grinding up against 25-yr-olds letting you take sips out of their rums-and-coke.

@ cranky

"Perhaps the focus should be on investigating whether DC's gun ban makes any sense since criminals don't seem to comply with it? "

couldn't agree more. you know what would have solved this problem on friday night? crossfire.

sigh

First they get rid of the smokers, now the little emo pukes? What's next? 2-for-1 specials on Geritol and Red Bull? That's not the DC I grew up in. That's not even Eisengard.

And as a veteran of not one but two crossfires at Club Ibex, anything that improves the marksmanship of criminals in DC is okay in my book. So DC residents get their Second Amendment rights and shooters hit their target. It's win-win.

Whenever God takes a dump, he always opens a window. Or something.

I can remember an evening at the old Metro Cafe on 14th Street years ago when I was outside talking to the door guy, and a girl comes up with a frantic look in her eyes. She starts giving this sob story about how she's out with her cousin, who's under 21, and could he PLEASE let her in, she PROMISES she won't drink, they just REALLY want to go to the Metro tonight. He just looks at her and laughs and tells her that the place is all ages, she can bring whoever she wants in. She's so confused at not having to make the hard sell to get her underage cousin into a bar that her jaw just drops. Then there's a five minute conversation where the guys she's with throw out a bunch of hypothetical situations because they're so shocked by the "all ages" concept.

"So, like, if some 8 year old came down the street and asked to come in, you'd let him????"

I'm usually a fan of Graham, and I've been happy to let him represent me for the past 8+ years, but this is the most idiotic knee-jerk response I've ever heard of. A minor is only more likely to get shot at a bar if gun-violence is more likely to happen at a bar than anyplace else.

And Rusty, the popularity of places like The Juice Bar, which exist in plenty of localities, only demonstrates that a lot of kids will take the option of going out to a dry venue rather than staying in and getting drunk. And yeah, some of those places even have live music, but just "live music" as a generality is not an end in and of itself. Saying that they should be happy with that is like saying to anyone else, "Why do you need to go to the Black Cat or the 9:30 tonight? Madams Organ and the Grog and Tankard have live music, too, what's the difference?"

And this sentence made me laugh out loud: "But it's also a consequence that I'd live with if it meant keeping young whippersnappers away from cocktails." If you think that keeping kids out of bars will effectively keep them away from alcohol, then you're as naive as my parents were. Kids will find a way. The all ages clubs I go to are EXTREMELY strict about keeping drinks out of the hands of underage attendees. The Black Cat even once went so far as to throw out Tony Hawk because he tried to give a drink to a friend without a handstamp. And he was a friend of the owners. The comment from Skaterboy above is absolutely right. If the goal is to keep teens safe and sober, better to have them at a club where their sobriety is strictly enforced rather than getting blitzed at whichever friend's house is parentless this weekend. I have NEVER known a 16-year-old who couldn't get their hands on as much alcohol as they wanted, whenever they wanted it, to drink in the privacy of their own home or in the vacant lot behind the local Gas 'n' Sip.

Look - the DC handgun ban simply doesn't work. I'm no NRA nut and don't have any guns. And yes, I live in DC and have lived here since the mid-90s. But can anyone say that the gun ban has any effect on crime? Can anyone say that criminals are the least bit worried about violating DC's gun ban if they get caught? Now, if violations of the gun ban resulted in, say, 5 years in prison and arrests for gun possession were zealously prosecuted by the US Attorney's office, then maybe that would have an effect. But until then, gun possession is no big deal to any would-be criminal.

And as for Graham, his proposal is nothing more than knee-jerk and reactive. Why aren't he and Fenty yelling about why some idiot fired his gun? And why aren't they asking questions about what the bouncers were doing wrestling with some idiot with a gun? Graham's proposal is cheap publicity. It makes it seem like he's "doing something", when in reality it wouldn't have stopped this tragic shooting.

Do they plan to release any description of the suspects?

Wow, quite the response from a DCist writer. I'm kind of honored.

Maybe it's a product of the boring suburban town where I grew up, but alcohol was not as easy to acquire as you make out to be. When I moved to DC (age 18), the easiest way for me to access alcohol was to go to The Spot, Guapos, or whatever horrible club my roommates wanted to go to and have people buy me drinks. I appreciate how strict these places are, but it never stopped me. And I feared authority a lot more than the average underage drinker. It was remarkably easier than going to a frat party and waiting for the cops to show up.

Anytime something like this is discussed, it's inevitable that someone will bring up the fact that kids will get drunk if they want to get drunk. I concede that point. But it should be the city's responsibility to make that as difficult as possible, especially in public. Eliminating all-age access to clubs is a reasonable way to go about that.

Surely we all agree that age limits for consuming alcohol are a good idea. 21 is a weird line in the sand, but it's the one we've got. If we don't think minors are mature enough to handle alcohol, how can we expect them to handle situations that involve dealing with heavily intoxicated people. It seems to be a disconnect that can be easily eliminated.

I don't know if other councilmembers are as responive, but Graham has personally responded to every email I've ever sent to him on any issue in my neighborhood over the years, and followed up with a number of city agencies on my behalf on various issues. He actually reads his emails, so if you oppose the legislation and are a resident of Ward 1, you should let him know.

grahamwone@gmail.com

Won't somebody please think of the children?

What did the incident have to do with alcohol sales anyway?

This is where this conversation can get really ugly. Two days before this shooting, Fall Out Boy played the 9:30 just a couple of blocks away. The place was, of course, packed with teenagers. Alcohol was served to adults. No one was shot.

Historically, the media has unfortunately often associated go-go with violence. Anyone with a brain knows the music isn't the problem- the societal ills that plague the areas of the city where go-go is so popular are to blame. But who wants to actually help society when we can just ban things?

There is a difference, a distinct difference, between the atmosphere and relative safety of a teenage punk rock show at a place like the Black Cat and a teenage go-go show at a club like 1919. We know that it is wrong to say that, it feels like racism and it might well be. But to deny it is to deny the truth.

The founders of the DC punk rock music scene are themselves parents now. And if they're not that old already, they'll soon have children who will be old enough to go to shows on their own, as we all did when we were younger. If you're in this predicament, can you honestly say you feel equally safe sending your kid to a go-go show as you would sending your kid to a punk show? Even if the neighborhoods were the same (compare 1919 to DC9, right across the street), are we comparing apples to apples?

There is potential for a serious, racially-charged response here. The politically correct instinct is to treat these clubs the same. But is that the correct approach?

From what I read in Graham's email this has nothing to do with alcohol. A girl got thrown out of the club for smoking pot (perhaps the one that got shot) ... she came back with a friend. The bouncers must have said something because a guy (perhaps the friend) pulled out a gun, struggled with the bouncers and the gun went off (killing a 16 year old girl).

I am much more concerned about all these minors out at all hours of the day and night than the fact that they were in a club. Don't these kids have parents? Curfews?

The fact that many of them are carying guns makes the problem that much more serious and there appear to be no real penalties to carrying/using a weapon in this city.

How do you go into a club, shoot the place up and NOT get caught?

"So are you saying that anyone under 21 should be banned from all restaurants as well?"

OK, now you're talking! I could get behind this.

"So should we keep kids away from all sporting events, restaurants, and family fishing trips as well?"

I think we have a consensus here.

Restricted all clubs with alcohol to 21 and over simply leaves a gap in options for youth. Other than the movies, which get old fast, there becomes nothing for them to do. (And creating dry clubs won't work because they don't draw enough $.)

Kicking kids out of clubs creates an incentive for them to look for their own fun, and actually creates more trouble. They end up going someplace where they are more isolated from the community, and with even less adult supervision should something go wrong. In these places it is even easier for kids to slide into casual drug use, because they are already out of view of any sort of authority figure.

If the clubs are dangerous, it is a policing issue. The clubs should either be shut down or better policed if there is any action at all to be taken. If the clubs are serving alcohol to underage groups, it is a policing issue where the clubs can be fined or have their liquor license in jeporady. If clubs then decide of their own accord to not allow minors because it is too much trouble, that is their issue. But gov't doesn't need to decide it for them because it won't be helping anyone.

Ian,

That's an excellent point about the safety of the scene developing as a result of a concerted effort by those seeking to protect it.

But I wonder if history could repeat itself. Perhaps my memory has gotten hazy in the years since, but I don't recall the violence being as bad. That's no consolation to the kids who were getting the beatings, but I think it's safe to say that lives were rarely threatened with guns. The stakes seem higher today. Crazy things went down back then, but I never remember being afraid of being shot.

I've often wondered about the juxtaposition of the development of the go-go scene vis-a-vis the punk rock scene. There was a hope, back then, that punk rock could be the community that united everyone. For go-go to have the same power, it would have to invoke that hope. And who can honestly say we're doing enough to foster hope in the kids who are into go-go? These kids have first got to believe they can actually make these positive changes in their society. It would be wonderful if that were the case, but I'm afraid our current culture, which includes 'solutions' such as banning alcohol instead of bringing the killer to justice, is just not conducive to saving these kids. It's shameful.

Gar, internal error, sorry if this gets posted twice.
The Washington Post reported that the bouncer kicked out a woman for lighting up a joint and then the whole brouhaha ensued as a result. Last time I checked, marijuana is sadly illegal for everyone, not just minors, so the serving alcohol to minors complaint seems to be irrelevant.

The Post also reports that the victim's parents are blaming the fact that alcohol is served at a club where minors are allowed, which seems like the impetus for Graham's knee-jerk response.

Here's the thing: talking about the music culture, serving alcohol to minors, and bringing up gun laws is obfuscating the issue at hand. The club acted responsibly in enforcing policy A, so it stands to reason that they would be responsible in enforcing policy B, namely, not serving alcohol to minors. The club is being unfairly targeted here, and should at least get some credit for attempting to provide an atmosphere that played by the rules.

Why isn't the woman who acted illegaly and set of the whole incident being blamed and/or held accountable?

Bars-clubs cannot be described as equivalent to resturants when it comes to supervising underage drinking. At a restuarant, you have your own, personal staff member in the form of a waiter that is supposed to guard against such things. While I agree this incident does not truly beg the response that was given, it is a good excuse nonetheless to tighten the age restrictions, which currently are too lenient. In a perversion of the addage 'won't somebody think of the children', these comments about people under 18 not having any options to entertain themselves is way over the top, and I don't give a crap if the 17 year olds have to stay home and play monopoly, they have no business being in a night club environment. Part of the basis for the age restrictions are the muturity levels of the patrons and their being responsible and accountable for their actions. Is it even possible that the immaturity of this girl and her idiot friend with the gun, combined with alcohol or pot abuse, led them to push their luck and caused this tragedy? Guns are nice to talk about, but the same thing could have happened with a knife. The problem here is that kids are operating in an adult environement which they are not equipped to deal with.

"Keeping them out of that environment certainly isn't going to teach them to deal with that environment."

Learned responsibility is important, sure, but is it appropriate to rely on an unrestricted nightclub environment as the social equivalent of training wheels?

It's incredibly simpletonistic to blame either teenagers or the clubs, or even go-go, for the shooting. It's all a different variation of blame the victim. And bringing up the (supposed) fact that white shows are safer than black ones is pure race baiting. I can understand a politician taking these approaches -- from a demagoguic, vote-getting standpoint, it makes some practical sense. Readers of this site taking that stance, I understand not so much.

Mark - Someone from Graham's office said earlier today that the legislation will ban anyone under the age of 21 from entering bars/taverns and nightclubs. Without even 18+ shows, I bet there will be lots of bored college kids in DC soon.