Kids were throwing snowballs at cars and a driver retaliated -- by shooting them

[left-of-center2012]

The group of children likely thought they were in for a night of harmless fun. The activity? Chucking snowballs at passing cars in a residential area on Milwaukee’s northwest side. But then, police say things took a dangerous turn when one driver retaliated against the kids — with a gun.

Shortly before 8 p.m. Saturday, officers from the Milwaukee Police Department responding to a report of a shooting arrived to find a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy suffering from gunshot wounds. It didn’t take long for authorities to figure out what had triggered the act of violence: a single snowball.

“Preliminary investigation indicates both victims were with a group of juveniles throwing snowballs at cars passing by,” the police department wrote in a series of tweets Monday. “One of the snowballs struck a white Toyota, no further description, and the driver of the auto fired shots into the group of kids striking the two victims.”

Officers at the scene provided first aid to the children, who sustained non-life-threatening injuries and are now recovering at a Milwaukee hospital. A search is underway for the driver, and as of Monday night, no arrests had been made yet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/07/milwaukee-children-shot-throwing-snowballs-passing-cars/

[Sancho]

1. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. None of that could prevent emotional outbreaks. When some people

become angry, they lose control for a few seconds or minutes.

I did that just yesterday, when a big truck leaving the construction site next door, decided to drive across my yard, rather than wait until other vehicles were moved. He ripped off a couple of tree limbs from my 120 yr. old Mangolia and sent my bird feeder flying in pieces. I came out the back door using every swear word I could muster. I wanted to damage his pickup. I wanted him in jail.

If a loaded gun is within reach, people use them in situations like that. My loss of control didn't hurt anyone (it did seem to shock some of the other workers) and within a minute, I apologized for my anger. If someone is shot or dead, apologies don't help.

[Sancho]

5. It doesn't prevent emotions.

But it makes it much harder for emotional people to have easy access to guns, and more likely that they were prevented from gun possession

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Who said it would? How will your licensing authority be able

to determine who might get angry? Only limiting the easy access to guns, doing away with both open and concealed carry, and totally banning assault rifles and hand guns will reduce the number of shootings in this country.

[Sancho]

14. The license does not evaluate who will get angry...

...but it would make it much more difficult for dangerous people to have easy access to possession of guns.

[Major Nikon]

12. "emotional people" describes everyone

If you think you are not capable of losing your shit over something stupid, then you are deluding yourself.

[Sancho]

13. Everyone has emotions...but very few will shoot guns at children...

...and dangerous people should not have easy access to possession of guns. There will always be exceptions, but our society allows obviously dangerous people to easily obtain and carry guns. They shoot others or themselves more often than necessary.

[Major Nikon]

16. Very few will shoot at anyone regardless of the reason

You are conveniently missing the point either intentionally or unintentionally. Furthermore you have just classified this person as "dangerous" without knowing any facts of the situation. Maybe they were dangerous and should never had a gun to begin with. Or maybe this person was having a very bad day and this instance was the straw that broke the camel's back.

When you read about enough of these situations, you find very normal and not "dangerous" people who just lost their shit and because they had a gun at their side did something extremely stupid and senseless. The real danger here is deluding ourselves into thinking we can just control "dangerous" people and these things would not happen. All that does is guarantee they will continue to happen.

[Sancho]

20. It's not a delusion....

...people who have diagnosed emotional issues (like depression)
...teenage boys
...people with a criminal history or under court orders
...etc., etc..

all would be more likely to "shoot children".

Required licensing INCLUDING a check of predicting factors would prevent some potentially dangerous people from gun possession. It would not prevent all shootings, but the vast majority of shootings are by people that were known to be dangerous - and they often have easy access to guns.

You may not control dangerous people, but society can make it much harder for them to possess guns.

[Major Nikon]

22. So someone with a diagnosis of depression and teenage boys are "dangerous"?

Really? Kinda hard to imagine how your “people control” scheme is going to work. If anyone wants to hear more about “people control” they can always get that from the NRA. It’s just another excuse for doing absolutely nothing.

Regardless people with less control over their emotion are obviously going to be more prone to violence, but the point you are still skirting is everyone is subject to losing their shit. Easy access to guns insures there will be more senseless shootings, including by people who are just as “dangerous” as you or me.

[Sancho]

23. I'm not skirting anything...

YES...teenagers are more dangerous than older adults (with guns).

If you are subject to "losing your shit" then you are like the drunk driver who should not be on the road, so you should not have access to guns.

A license of this type is not supported by the NRA - to the contrary - the NRA would prefer to engage in an endless battle over types of guns and banning guns. That is a losing strategy to me.

As you know, a "license" is legal and already in place in many states. Now make the license process effective and it will save lives.

If you want to ban certain guns that's fine too, but so far that has not worked.

[Major Nikon]

24. You are subject to losing your shit

So am I as is everyone else. Your emotions most definitely have the potential to override rational thought. If you think you are immune, you are wrong.

[Sancho]

25. That has nothing to do with shooting children...

...in many decades of all sorts of emotions, I've never threatened anyone with a gun. It's very unlikely that I would. By training, experience, and temperament I am very unlikely to do so. In my case, I may "lose it" and say a curse word or something. I would not pull out a gun and start shooting like we see in movie theaters, on highways, or in schools today! Most of the shooters were well known to family, friends, and community as unstable, emotional, dangerous, or criminal.

I could be hit by lighting, but it's very, very unlikely. Still, I don't walk around flying a kite in a thunderstorm!! Dangerous people should not be allowed to walk and buy guns on the spot.

People who are more likely to be dangerous should not have easy access to gun possession! One way to achieve that is to have a license that must be used to sell/buy guns, or enter a shooting range, or go hunting, or when transporting a gun, etc. Just like DUI, if you possesses a gun without a license, you forfeit the gun.

People should be VETTED before getting a license: criminal background, insurance application, training, etc. If there is some red flag, you should not be allowed access to guns. Part of that vetting may include a psychological record or screening if warranted.

Will there be "fake licenses" or people who lie on their applications? Yes. But it will keep many of the unsuitable or dangerous people from EASY ACCESS to gun possession.

[Major Nikon]

28. So because you never have, you think that means you never will?

Lose your job, partner leaves you, dog dies, or some other tragic event happens that has never happened before, and then someone cuts you off in traffic. Precious is right beside you and in your emotional state you think it's a good idea to light them up.

That's how it happens over and over and over again all over the US, and even those who are extremely close to these people never saw any of the precursors you are talking about. If you believe it can't happen to you, then you are a lot more dangerous than you have led yourself to believe.

[Sancho]

30. You don't seem to understand...

no one can predict all the possible futures...but we can all look at the most likely scenarios!! Historically, most shootings (including suicides) may have been prevented, because many of the family, friends, teachers, counselors, therapists, etc. surrounding the shooter were aware the person was potentially dangerous. In most states, it's very difficult to prevent those people from easily obtaining a gun. A serious, preventative license is one way to get a handle on the problem.

It is extremely unlikely that I will go crazy and shoot someone at this point, but there are obviously signs and situations that make some people inherently more dangerous!! If I was diagnosed with an emotional disorder, or told people that I was depressed then I should not have access to guns.

If we identify those people and make it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT (prevent them from having a license) to possess guns, it will reduce the shootings and deaths.

The process to obtain the license and inability to possess a gun without it would keep many dangerous people from shooting others. It would not prevent ALL the people from obtaining a gun who should not have one, but it would go a long way.

It it does not make sense to you, then I have no other way to explain it.

[Major Nikon]

31. I understand you're just repeating the same tropes trotted out by many others before you

Which is we should just write gun deaths off as a mental health issue for which there is no workable solution short of instituting a Nazi level system of people classification and an almost arbitrary system of limiting access on that basis. All of which is designed to deflect from the elephant in the room of unfettered access to the most dangerous sort of weapons and the proliferation of those weapons into virtually every segment of society.

So please don't confuse my refusal to accept your well debunked argument as a failure to understand. I understand perfectly what you are saying.

[Sancho]

34. Actually, I am avoiding a "mental health" database...

...required insurance companies and research could determine predictors of future behavior, but other than some "red flag" indicators, the license would not list your mental "health". I suspect that SOME prior behaviors (like suicide attempts) would prevent you from getting a license unless you were cleared by a professional.

None of this deflects the problem. In fact, the entire idea is to stop unfettered access!

All of the ideas incorporated in the "license" have been tried, and demonstrated effective, but not in a statewide or comprehensive system.

If states also limit some weapons, that ok too...so far that effort appears to have failed.

[crickets]

18. Reasonable and practical.

Operating and safety lessons and the ability to pass a test for a license is required for automobiles because of the level of danger autos can pose to the public at large, so why not require the same for guns? Accidents happen. Because of this, insurance is required before the legal ability to drive an automobile, so why not have the same for guns?

None of your ideas involve taking guns away from responsible gun owners. Regulations and safety requirements like this would make it harder for irresponsible and unqualified people to own or misuse firearms, which is good for everyone, including responsible, qualified gun owners.

An automobile license and insurance won't stop a driver from deliberately plowing into people with a car, true, but no ever uses that as an argument against requiring a driver's license, do they?

[Sancho]

21. Many states require a simple vision test and road test to get a driving license.

The DMV will not diagnose your vision problem, or give you a prescription for glasses, but if you can't see you should not drive!

If you filled out a form, had a background check, and you were "taking pills for depression" and under protective order to stay away from a girlfriend and living with two toddlers in the house, and had a prior arrest for public disturbance...well, you may not be a good candidate to have a gun! No more complicated than a vision check and road test.

Before you possess a gun, buy ammo, go to the shooting range, or go hunting you could show your license. Simple.

It would not solve ALL the shootings, but it would often keep the worst offenders from easy access.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. I'm totally fine with all of this

n/t

[dewsgirl]

2. This person needs to be put under the jail.😳

Thank God, they lived. Horrific.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. This is terrible

I hope they find the person.

[TheBlackAdder]

29. I bet that guy used to do the same thing when he was a kid--but that was different somehow.

[Iggo]

6. Gunfuckers gonna gunfuck. (n/t)

[raccoon]

7. If those young people had guns, they could've defended

Themselves from that driver.

[secondwind]

8. I somehow think that throwing snowballs at passing cars is a very bad idea.

I don’t think shooting kids is the answer, though.

[Kaleva]

11. Throwing snowballs at passing cars is not harmless as the article says

But shooting those kids is not justified. Even just brandishing a gun at the kids wouldn't be.

[crickets]

19. +1

[Aristus]

10. Fucking Cop-Speak: "A group of juveniles".

They are KIDS, you hamhock!

[bdamomma]

15. sickening

people are loosing their morals.

Hate must be diffused, we need gun control too.

[Initech]

17. Hooray guns!!

[Major Nikon]

33. In the nonexistent war against gun deaths, some are happy guns are winning

Very telling that.

[samnsara]

26. ..ya know.... these kids are old enuff to know not to do that...but they shouldnt have

...got shot. After they heal i bet they get what for from dad. They were LUCKY this time.


Hell I dont even honk at cars sitting thru TWO red lights in Downtown Seattle.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Uncomfortable For Me

My 3rd year of HS, a guy in my homeroom shot & killed a kid for hitting his car with a snowball.
He sat next aisle, one row back.
He was in school, THE MORNING AFTER THE SHOOTING!!!
The guy he was with was so scared of him, he said nothing until his parents started putting 2 & 2 together and grilled him.
He admitted he was there, and dad took him straight to cops as a witness.
Worse yet, my dad worked with the 11 year old's dad. We went to the wake. It was sad.
Also, his 8 or 9 year old brother had a bullet hole through the hood of his coat.
That family was 4 inches away from losing both sons over snowballs.
This story is bothersome for me.