Milwaukee Man Asks Friend to Shoot Him

[mikeb302000]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/126225293.html">JSOnline reports

on the Milwaukee man who asked his friend to shoot him in order to win his girlfriend back. It didn't work.

The judge sentenced him to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service, and at a separate hearing this month, gave the same sentence to Anthony D. Woodall, 20, of South Milwaukee, a friend of Cardella who lined up Wezyk to do the shooting. Woodall was convicted of the same felony as party to a crime. If they both complete probation successfully, the court will consider a motion to expunge this offense from their records.

Sure, and after they get this one expunged, maybe Cardella can request that his gun rights be returned even though he did have one other felony. Of course by then Wezyk will be back in action, guns and all.

I think a little time in jail would have done these boys some good. But I feel much more strongly that losing their gun rights for life would have done them and everyone else around them more good.

What do you think. I would apply the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">one-strike-you're-out rule, or the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/03/man-who-would-be-king.html">MikeB is King rule, as it is sometimes known, even to people who drop a gun. I see that as the least offensive type of misuse, but one worthy of a severe response. When someone actually misuses a gun purposely, like these two did, they should never be allowed near guns again.

The reason for such severity, both in the case of negligence and in the case of wrong action, is based on the idea that anyone who does something like this once, is more likely to repeat it than someone who's never done it. I realize some people would be unfairly swept up in a policy like this, people who might have learned a lesson and never repeated the mistake, but just think of all the reckless and stupid people who would be helped.

Negligence and stupidity with guns would drop to an all time low after about ten years. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

[saras]

1. I agree, but can't see how you could possibly do it without completely invasive gun control

...because for people like these there's a whole world of difference between "never legally allowed near guns again" and "never allowed near guns again". Enforcing the second would require a degree of fascism far beyond anything we've seen so far.

So, without invoking the whole second amendment issue, how do you propose that such a thing be done?

My own idea is to actually ignore the 'gun' aspect of it, and try to target a more general form of stupidity that people will agree needs to be controlled independently of what mechanism the stupidity manifests in. In this case, I'd specifically ignore the gun. Shooting someone is attempted murder and assault and probably three or four other crimes if they look real hard. The article actually lists a whole bunch of dropped and/or reduced charges. I think they could have stuck the two with all of them. Whether that would help anything, I don't know - I don't have any up-close information except this, from the article...

"What were you thinking?" she asked Wezyk.

"I wasn't," he replied.

[mikeb302000]

6. there are many factors in gun violence

stupidity is one, as is poor education, drug and alcohol problems, many things. But the most concrete one is gun availability. And as such it is the one we could do something about fairly quickly, not instead of working on the other social and economic problems, but in addition to working on them.

Gun control in its strictest sense, background checks for all transfers, licensing for all gun owners, registration for every gun sold, safe home storage requirements, all these and more would not probibit the honest, responsible gun owner from owning guns. But it would vastly cut down on the fuck-ups among the legitimate gun owners as well as the unabated flow of guns from the good guys to the bad guys.

[gejohnston]

9. nonsense

all these and more would not probibit the honest, responsible gun owner from owning guns.

Don't know much about NYC or DC do you?

[Atypical Liberal]

10. How do you explain this then?

here are many factors in gun violence stupidity is one, as is poor education, drug and alcohol problems, many things. But the most concrete one is gun availability.

How do you explain, then, that despite record sales of firearms and ammunition over the last decade, all violent crime continues to decline over the same time period?

This would seem to counter your claim that gun availability is a "most concrete" factor for gun violence.

[iverglas]

13. curious

record sales of firearms and ammunition over the last decade

These are legal sales, right?

And you're aware that the number of legal firearms owners isn't rising sharply, but the average number of firearms they own is?

So what does any of this have to do with availability of firearms to people who use them in crimes?

They already had pretty much universal access to firearms a decade ago. That market was and is saturated.

So I guess the decline must result from other factors, like demographics or economics or the removal of lead from the environment.

To factor out things like demographic or economic changes, horizontal rather than logitudinal comparisons can be made.

In countries where access to firearms is more limited -- where people who commit firearms crime and violence don't actually have unlimited access to firearms as they do in the US -- firearms crime and violence rates are much lower.

Pretty simple.

[gejohnston]

15. but those countries also had low crime rates when they did not

have such laws.

In countries where access to firearms is more limited -- where people who commit firearms crime and violence don't actually have unlimited access to firearms as they do in the US -- firearms crime and violence rates are much lower.

But in all of the countries that have higher murder rates than the US, private ownership of guns are are very limited or prohibited. Most of these places make us look like Canada and Japan. Of course you are going to move the goal posts with economics or drug smuggling etc.

[iverglas]

23. who was talking about laws?

Access to firearms ( including but not limited to the numbers of firearms in circulation ) has always been more limited in countries like Canada and the UK and so on.

But in all of the countries that have higher murder rates than the US, private ownership of guns are are very limited or prohibited.

I'm afraid that you are the only one "moving the goal posts" here.

Please follow.

I said nothing about LAWS. Private ownership in the countries you are talking about may be "prohibited" but it is not "limited" IN REALITY.

Access to firearms by people likely to use them to commit crimes and violence is the issue.

That access is virtually unlimited in the US.

It is much more limited in countries like Canada and the UK -- witness the fact that a large proportion of crime guns in Canada, for example, have had to be smuggled in from the US.

[mikeb302000]

19. by most concrete

I don't mean necessarily the biggest or most important. That's probably poor education or unemployment or drug and alcohol addiction.

By most concrete, I mean exactly that. It's the most tangible one which we could directly attack. The other problems require long range solutions, gun availability can be addressed right away.

[SteveM]

11. "Gun availability" has not resulted in more crime...

The violent crime rate has been on a near 15 yr. decline, even as the number of guns in civilian hands has gone up by over 100,000,000. Further childhood "gun-accident" rates have fallen, faster even than the other categories listed by the National Safety Council. "Gun availability" is not the "most concrete factor. How far "progressive" politics have fallen when the causes of societal problems -- "poor education, drug and alcohol problems," lack of jobs, poor family life -- are lesser factors than your dubious concrete.

How do you "license all gun owners" when da thug can get his/her without one? Registration is a government record of every citizen who is exercising his right to keep and bear arms, a non-starter politically, and with no benefit demonstrated.

We already have criminal and mentally incompetent BG checks.

[mikeb302000]

20. those background checks are working fine

according to you, Steve?

How about the report that 40% of gun sales are done without a background check of any kind. Only some at gun shows from private sellers but the rest at the kitchen table or in the garage. 40% man. That's were the guns are going south. When you add to that the straw purchasing business that's rampant you've got a tremendous flow of guns into the criminal world. The third source is theft.

All of these things can be controlled, and not by expecting criminals to obey the laws, but by expecting the law abiding to.

I know all you want to talk about is the 15-year decline in violent crime. But if those things I keep talking about were cleaned up, what do you think the violent crime would look like then?

[beevul]

22. What report?

"How about the report that 40% of gun sales are done without a background check of any kind."

What report?


Cite please.

[iverglas]

24. heh heh

That's {where} the guns are going south.

And north, my friend, right over our border. ;)

Actually, a lot of the ones that come north originate with straw purchases.

Without a registration scheme, there is little deterrent for eligible purchasers not to transfer their firearms to ineligible purchasers (and they are not able to ensure this even if they want to, when they sell privately) -- or to do the gun-running themselves. You say in respect of purchases (i.e. requiring vendors / making it possible for vendors to ensure that they are selling only to eligible purchasers):

All of these things can be controlled, and not by expecting criminals to obey the laws, but by expecting the law abiding to.

and the added protection is a registry to deter those wo aren't quite so inherently law-abiding.

[SteveM]

25. Your "cleaning up" is speculation at best...

That BG checks have their flaws is obvious; your characterization of my statement is what doesn't "work fine." The biggest problem with BG checks is that the states, which are required to report results, don't do a good job of reporting. Even after the VT shootings, it was found that Cho SHOULD have been disqualified due to mental incapacity, but Virginia had not forwarded the info -- and Virginia was far better about reporting this data than most states.

If you were here a few years earlier, you would have seen that NICS-type bg checks for everyone was proffered by 2A defenders in this forum. You might wish to check the archives for the discussions. Problems with such a scheme would be (1) proper custodial and disposal of records to prevent them from being federal government de facto registration; (2) intrusion on a state's individual authority to regulate firearm usage by employing a federal scheme (note the NICS test affects federally-licensed firearms dealers because the feds have that authority); (3) cost of such a scheme, and who would be burdened by such. Many 2A defenders are open to some sort of universal BG check.

The 15-yr. decline in violent crime illustrates a social problem which has to some degree been ameliorated. No one knows for sure, hence the "freakonomics" explanations, but there may be better strategies afoot than yet another regulatory scheme, given the "expansion" of 2A rights during that same period.

[bellcrank]

16. I don't think "unabated" means what you think it means.

:eyes:

[mikeb302000]

21. why don't you help us out with that then? n/t

[pipoman]

2. Covert blog spamming unrec..

[ileus]

3. GSW's are cool, and win stupid girls back.

[mojowork_n]

4. Honestly, I live in Milwaukee

I'm typing to you -- live -- from the near, near South Side.

Stupidity like this is generational.

The dude's grandfather was an ignorant, mean, self-absorbed
prick.

His father was the same, but maybe started to drink a little
less.

....The only hope for "negligence and stupidity with guns
dropping to an all time low" is not in 10 years, but maybe

-- Maybe --

in another generation or two.

When the male in the family manages to draw a distinction
between his Johnson, and the hard, metal substitute for same.

[rrneck]

5. And now for another exciting episode of

HYPERBOLE FOR DOLLARS! Where our intrepid internet entrepreneur tries to spin bullshit into gold.

Any compassionate, thinking person would advocate help for those kids and their loved ones - not some draconian lifetime ponishment that pours public resources down the toilet of your authoritarian ideology.

Just another attempt to profit from human misery through the miracle of blogspam. MikeB is indeed king - of greedy bullshit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Unrec for blog spamming

Half the prior responses are about this bubba spamming and flogging his blog. Have to wonder just how clueless he can be

[RSillsbee]

8. unrec blogspam NT

[SteveM]

12. Spamarama!!

[ileus]

14. Funny thing is will be another stat people will try and use to ban guns.

[petronius]

17. It gets better!

"While awaiting the outcome of this case, Woodall and Wezyk went to deliver marijuana to someone, but it turned out to be grass clippings and/or catnip. The victim complained to police."

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Dayum. There's some industrial-strength stupidity going around in that neighborhood.

Someone needs to check this lot for exposure to heavy metals. They all act like they grew up sucking on lead paint chips....