17-Year-Old Girl Shot in Milwaukee

MILWAUKEE - Milwaukee Police say a 17-year-old girl is hurt after she was shot near 70th and Bobolink on Sunday night.

Investigators say the girl was part of a group of people that were arguing. The group was driving in several cars. They fired shots in several different places.

Bullets hit another car and a house in addition to the girl.

The girl's relatives took her to the hospital. She's expected to recover.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/91452394.html

Once again, we're left to guess what this story (sorely lacking in detail) is supposed to demonstrate.

but I'm assuming that the point is that someone was irresponsible enough to allow a formally legal firearm to find its way illegally into the hands of a criminal.

Whether the gun was stolen, illegally sold, or found on the street, someone, someplace, was responsible for facilitating its illegal use.

In the same way the auto industry facilitated the drive-by.

Would this be what used to be known as an 'occasion of sin' amongst Catholics?

the automobile analogy doesn't really hold water. Vehicles are designed and manufactured for the express purpose of transportation, just like other "tools" are manufactured for specific purposes. What is the "specific" purpose of a weapon, and why should we always assume that they are loaded and potentially lethal?

I was not implying that the gun industry was irresponsible (actually, the contrary is true), but that individual "legal" gun owners need to be held more responsible for their acquisitions. I don't have the stats, but I would guess that 99% of all armed criminals acquired guns which were originally "legal" purchases at some point. Homemade "Saturday Night Specials" tend to blow off hands and fingers, so they are not very popular.

All civil rights come with responsibilities -- some more grave than others.

some weapons such as knives are used for cutting food or to perform common household tasks.

But I suspect when you say "What is the "specific" purpose of a weapon, and why should we always assume that they are loaded and potentially lethal", you are referring to firearms.

As with other weapons such as knives, the purpose varies. Some are used for target shooting, some for hunting some for self defense. All these uses are legitimate. No firearm currently on the civilian market is explicitly designed for the sole purpose of murdering. Some firearms, unfortunately, are misused to murder or commit crime.

The automobile analogy does indeed apply as while "vehicles are designed and manufactured for the express purpose of transportation", some vehicles are misused for street drag racing or to transport illegal items. In some areas of the world they are packed with explosives and used as bombs.

You ask why we should assume that firearms and loaded and potentially lethal. Simply because of safety. Until you can determine that a firearm is unloaded, you assume that it is loaded. When a smart individual gets into a vehicle to drive it, he has looked at the tires to make sure they are inflated and after he starts it, he checks the fuel gage and warning lights. When you walk around a parked vehicle you check to see if it is running and occupied.

"weapon" comes from my experience in the military, and yes I was referring mainly to firearms. The "specific" purpose of a firearm is to kill something, or someone. A pistol makes a lousy hammer, it's hard to dig a ditch with a rifle, and a tank is a bad transportation choice, but they all excel at killing.

I know all of the tool-comparison arguments, and yes you can kill someone with a toothbrush, or even your bare hands, if you're so inclined. The point is that a "tool" designed and manufactured specifically for lethal application should come with a lot more responsibility than an automobile, a screwdriver, or a knife. I firmly believe that is what the Founders meant by "well regulated." They did not qualify that any of the other Bill of Rights Amendments be "well regulated."

I do not advocate taking away anyone's gun, or imposing any more asinine "controls" on their purchase. What I do advocate, is a lot more education and information on the safe-keeping of firearms, and penalties for failing to be responsible. If you serve a person too much alcohol at your house, and they get into an accident after leaving, many jurisdictions will hold you accountable. There have been many civil lawsuits which have upheld personal responsibility for various irresponsible acts and carelessness, and I don't see firearm irresponsibility as a legal sacred cow.

Peace...;-)

and if you really wanted to kill people in mass the 105 does the job much better than a rifle or m9. So you like the Swiss model of militia? I can take my M4 (no A1 in my day) home? Nahh, probably not.

BTW Civil liability if some asshole gets drunk at your house and crashes a car is far different than if that person rapes a guest in your pool house. He still owns his dick, drunk on my booze or not.

No one wants to own their shit anymore. Always someone else's problem.

I assume that no matter your MOS you received basic training. During that time you were instructed on the M16a4 and M4's operation. You also may have noted that both weapons would dimple primers if the bolt carrier was released and then the round unloaded. Civilian models apparently dont do this, lowest bid wins again.

If you ND the weapon into another person you owned that. Not an "accident", even if the weapon was locked while loaded. This is the responsibility you speak of right?

So does bct and act qualify me to own a sidearm. How about two ssbi checks, one in and one in the real world?

Now define irresponsible operation please.

Edit: Not trying to be a prick, just think people should own their actions.

trying to rreason with you guy. Your defenses are on high alert, and you will be right in your own mind regardless of any attempt at rational discussion.

Take care, and peace...;-)

"The "specific" purpose of a firearm is to kill something, or someone."

Err, no. The "specific purpose(s)" of my firearms are to: 1. gain skill at various forms of target shooting, 2. hunting, and 3. self-defense. When used in self-defense, my attacker might die (although this is seldom the end outcome of such actions), but his/her death is not the "specific purpose" of the firearm.

quibble all you want, but a firearm is specifically designed to either kill game for food (or sport), present a threat to kill in self-defense, or to aggressively kill something or someone. Other uses are incidental.

In fact, I agree that it is a good idea.

Florida has a class for hunter safety that can combine a computer course with some classroom and range time.



Military weapons ARE designed for use in warfare. Civilian firearms are designed for many different uses. Target quality handguns would fail to meet military standards as some such as a .22 cal S&W Model 41 use small caliber ammo and are finicky about feeding some ammo. A target grade .45 auto would fail in a combat environment as its tolerances are so tight that dust and mud would render it useless. A military grade .45 has far loser tolerances and consequently is far less accurate. A bolt or lever action rifle might be great for hunting deer, but would be a poor choice for the normal infantry soldier.




Baer 1911 CMP-Legal National Match Hardball Pistol
For demanding CMP matches, this super accurate match gun is guaranteed to shoot 10-shot, 3 inch groups at 50 yards with ball ammo.

and if you'd like I can post pictures of a close range gunshot (shotgun) and head trauma from a head on accident involving a new truck and older ford. Split skulls and splattered brains look about the same.

Now, I enjoy drinking, shit on occasion I will even get a bit drunk. But I NEVER drive drunk. Because I am a responsible fucking adult. Not a problem with bud light is it? Bud light kills more than S&W by your logic.

I also don't rob people at the ATM and will not shoot you in the face for crack money. We all make choices.

You come to my house and drink, your choice on calling a cab. I am not your fucking mommy, so I am not responsible if some poon steals my gun anymore than I am responsible if one of 60 guests my wedding drinks to much.

No one wants to own their shit. It is all someone else's fault.

"No one wants to own their shit. It is all someone else's fault."

Yet you are not responsible for keeping your gun locked away and safe from theft, or preventing your guests from getting drunk and causing an accident? Responsible adult? Okey-dokey then...

Not sure bubba, but I think that you just made my point. Have another beer and think about it...;-)

And no I am not responsible for some asshole at my wedding (or whatever large event) who drinks to much and declines a free cab ride.

You dont have a fucking point and dont call me bubba, I design jet engine assembly and fab procedures and at the last gig nuclear reactor parts for the navy. I didn't sit through that to be called bubba by some nameless fool.

The dumb motherfucker that steals my gun or actually drives home drunk and kills a family of 4 is the owner.

Yeah, here is a tip, if you go to someones event and get drunk they arent responsible for your driving home drunk any more than they are if you rape a woman in the pool house.

Not worth the effort.

you people have jumped on this dead horse to the point it fell apart. Ever wonder why old souther racists always voted democrat. Because the republicans put blacks on the ticket after the war.

Then the party reformed and decided that racism was bad. A similar think happened in 1995 when newt walked into office on a pointless AWB.

Gun control is done here.

time to listen, instead of rant, you would have seen that I do not favor gun control, but a little more people control. As I stated in another post, there are already laws, regulations, and codes on the books that could drastically reduce guns getting into the wrong hands in this country, but many times they are either not enforced, or ignored.

What is wrong with calling for more personal responsibility on the part of ALL Americans for much more than just firearms? That seems to be what you are advocating.

I have no quarrel with you, but your overbearing and loud-mouthed responses do absolutely nothing for your "cause." If you don't want to be perceived as a "bubba," stop sounding like one...;-)

I despise people who refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. With weapons, with cars, or with any number of things that can ruin others lives.

Personally I see drug crime and lack of mental health care as major drivers of violent crime.

for the "bubba" remark. I didn't see this response before I replied above, so I guess we're even on the asshole scale...;-)

for their actions...could you please point me to some? Thanks a lot!
:hi:

No one except people who are in support of truly asinine laws and against ANY gun ownership says it.

is to move a specified projectile at high velocity.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

"action" of a firearm. The purpose is to kill something, or someone. "Recreational" or sport-shooting is nothing more than proficiency training for accuracy.

The use of the firearm is up to the HUMAN that operates it. If it is used to punch holes in paper then that is its"use", if it is used to punch holes in living tissue then again that is its "use". It all depends on the HUMAN on what use it will be used for.

"Recreational" or sport-shooting is nothing more than proficiency training for accuracy. That is true, learning to shoot accurately requires practice. I shoot 300-500rds a month in practice, in order to produce small groups at long range. I am a Highpower shooter.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

or an automobile is also up to the "human" using them, but it would be difficult (but not impossible) to carry out a home invasion, or an armed robbery using either one.

Believe me, I understand all of the analogies comparing guns with "tools," and other implements, but the "specific purpose" of any firearm is to kill (or threaten to kill) whether in self-defense, or in a criminally offensive situation.

That does not make firearms by themselves any more dangerous than death by booga-booga, but firearms are just so well-suited for the purpose. Self-defense with firearms is not the problem facing our society -- it is the need for self-defense that we need to address. And that's what Liberals do...;-)

'Cause Olympic shooting is really just training for professional assasins.

Or something.

a demonstration of skill and has no bearing to the primary purpose of the firearm. The javelin throw evolved from another weapon which was designed to kill, as did archery.

Look, according to your own arguments the "specific purpose" of an automobile is to provide transportation, but it can be misused in order to kill something or someone. The reverse is true of a firearm: it's "specific purpose" is to kill, but it can be used for other purposes. Pointing out a firearm's primary purpose does not take away from its usefulness, its utility, nor its Constitutional protections -- it is just an honest statement of fact.

The safety rules for motor vehicles--or, for that matter, power tools--may not be quite a succinct as Cooper's Four Rules, but I don't see a difference in principle between "keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot"* and "do not put the engine in gear and release the brakes until there are no obstructions in front of the vehicle," or between "before attempting to fell a tree (with a chainsaw), ensure there is a clear area into which the tree can fall" and "be sure of your target, and what is beyond it."



Yes, firearms found in the criminal circuit will originally have been diverted from the legal market, but how they make their way into criminal hands is open to discussion. According to the DoJ study Firearm Use by Offenders (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940), the two major sources for crime guns were family and friends (33.8%), and the street/black market (30.3%). The only situations in which the criminals could have directly purchased a firearm from a legal private owner not personally known to them was at flea markets and gun shows, which together accounted for less than 2% (and could still include sales by FFLs at gun shows). Now admittedly, that data is from 1991 and 1997, but there's no readily apparent reason why that percentage should have changed dramatically. It is an indicator that theft and especially straw purchasing each form a significantly larger conduit from the legal to the illegal circuit than legal owners being insufficiently cautious about who they sell to.

* - Though personally, I adhere to the Ayoob variation of "do not let your finger inside the trigger guard unless you are actually in the act of intentionally firing the weapon."

how "safety rules" apply to, or alter, the designed purpose for any machine, implement, or act. Safety is a universal concept, and should apply to almost all human activities. I totally agree, however, that the careless misuse of anything can lead to injury or death.

As I have pointed out before, a shovel's "designed purpose" is to dig a hole, but it can be used as a weapon. Almost anything can be used as a weapon to inflict lethal force, but only a few "tools" are specifically designed for that purpose, and a firearm (especially a handgun) is one of them.

My only point is that the specific purpose of a gun is to either threaten, or actually inflict, lethal force. All other uses, safety precautions, and proficiency exercises are incidental to a firearm's intended purpose. On the other hand, a vehicle's "designed purpose" is to provide a means of transportation from point "A" to point "B" whether it is for personal or commercial use.

I really can't understand why people wish to tap dance around the fact that a firearm's only designed purpose is to either provide protection from a life-threatening event, or to perpetrate a life-threatening event (and that includes hunting for food, and military combat). I'm not attempting to make any moral judgments here, but only pointing out fact.

That fact does not change the Second Amendment -- if fact it reinforces the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote it. I certainly don't think that they envisioned a "well regulated militia" which was armed only with apple carts and pitchforks. They had just finished killing many British soldiers with the most effective "tools" available: firearms.

I also did not kill anyone this weekend while consuming alcohol. Decided driving was not wise.

He does find some of the worse examples of journalism these days. And people wonder why newspapers are going out of business....

Then we'll all be safe.

Seriously, quarantine those crap beers and torch 'em.

They got nothing on Maine.