quade 4 #1 April 5, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/04/pittsburgh.officers.shot/index.html QuoteWearing a bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-47, a long rifle and a pistol, Poplawski fired about 100 rounds during the standoff, Harper said. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxAP_ul1xtDvN-3H8XQ5EaI6_7cAD97BUCB81 QuotePolice Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns. (emphasis mine) How the F does THAT make sense? I can understand him being upset about him losing his job (who can't these days), but how in the world do his actions make any sense at all if he was afraid his weapons would be taken away? Pretty much a guaranteed thing now isn't it?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #2 April 5, 2009 QuoteHow the F does THAT make sense? He fires 100 rounds, kills the police officers and you expect him to make sense? I don't think any sane person would be able to follow the reason string he out together.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 April 5, 2009 he said goodbye to a friend before the event. Suicidal, but not entirely. History of violence. If he tries to put on a defense, his lawyers will certainly try to have him certified as insane. Be interesting to see if shrinks not picked by the defense concur, or if he was just an asshole. This might be the kind of person you would want screened out by background checks, but at 23, I doubt you'd find any medical history. The police had been out before for disturbances, but likely nothing to warrant seizure. Worth investigating, but I suspect you'll end up with success only at the expense of many false positives as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 April 5, 2009 (04-05) 08:44 PDT Pittsburgh (AP) -- An ambush that resulted in the shooting deaths of three Pittsburgh policemen was precipitated by a 911 call from the gunman's mother over a dog urinating in the house. According to court papers, Richard Poplawski and his mother argued about his dog's accident Saturday morning, prompting her to threaten to evict him and to call police. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/04/national/a062341D13.DTL&tsp=1 ------ gives a bit more clarity to the why Saturday question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 April 5, 2009 Quotegives a bit more clarity to the why Saturday question. I'm not certain that gives a lot of "clarity," in fact the whole thing is goofy from start to finish. The man is obviously mentally disturbed and in possession of guns. According to some, we have more than enough checks and balances to prevent that already, so then, how does that happen?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #6 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow the F does THAT make sense? He fires 100 rounds, kills the police officers and you expect him to make sense? I don't think any sane person would be able to follow the reason string he out together. I'm not sure I can follow your last sentence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #7 April 5, 2009 QuoteThe man is obviously mentally disturbed and in possession of guns. According to some, we have more than enough checks and balances to prevent that already, so then, how does that happen? What do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe man is obviously mentally disturbed and in possession of guns. According to some, we have more than enough checks and balances to prevent that already, so then, how does that happen? What do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 April 6, 2009 QuoteWhat do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? When you find a way to figure out who's going to twist off at some undetermined point in the future, be sure to let us know.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing. And that's going to do what to solve the stated problem, exactly?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 April 6, 2009 I doubt the information exists yet to analyze for this particular guy, but given his age, I doubt any screening method would have prevented this. Guarantees are easier to get in a totalitarian society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #12 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing. I really do want to know, and I'm really curious what sort of licensing is going to completely prevent "mentally disturbed" people from obtaining guns. I'm also curious which "mentally disturbed" people would not be allowed to have guns and who would get to decide this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #13 April 6, 2009 Quote (04-05) 08:44 PDT Pittsburgh (AP) -- An ambush that resulted in the shooting deaths of three Pittsburgh policemen was precipitated by a 911 call from the gunman's mother over a dog urinating in the house. According to court papers, Richard Poplawski and his mother argued about his dog's accident Saturday morning, prompting her to threaten to evict him and to call police. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/04/national/a062341D13.DTL&tsp=1 ------ gives a bit more clarity to the why Saturday question. The way I read the storyMom is pissed off because sons dog pissed in her house (again) and calls 911. Son gets pissed at mom for calling cops , Gets his guns, body armour and waits to ambush the cops when they show up, Why didn't Mom call 911 and warn the cops they were walkingi nto a trap.Or did mom callAnother waste of human life, because people expect other people to solve their personnel problems.One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing. I really do want to know, and I'm really curious what sort of licensing is going to completely prevent "mentally disturbed" people from obtaining guns. I'm also curious which "mentally disturbed" people would not be allowed to have guns and who would get to decide this. I will admit that no amount of licensing will "completely prevent," if you'll admit that it will at least stop some. In this particular case, licensing and more stringent background checks could have kept guns (at least legally purchased ones) out of his hands. Knowing he could go to jail for having weapons in his possession when he shouldn't (as would be the case if licensing were required), might be enough to keep him from purchasing illegal guns and not having them at his disposal on the day he decides it's time to really go off the deep end and start shooting cops. The first tip off that he was mentally unstable was his discharge from the Marines. Quote Poplawski had once tried to join the Marines, but was kicked out of boot camp after throwing a food tray at a drill sergeant, Perkovic said. People go through boot camp every day and very few are tossed out for picking fights with drill sergeants. Most stable people would not do that no matter how far they had been pushed, but to do something so severe that it causes you to be tossed out of boot camp has to be pretty f'in' bad. So there's your clue right there. If you're too mentally fucked up for the Marines, you're too fucked up to own a gun. But wait! That's not all! http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960750-53.stm Quote Court records show that on Sept. 14, 2005, Mr. Poplawski attacked Miss Gladish outside 1016 Fairfield St., the same address at which he would later be accused of killing the three police officers. Miss Gladish said she had gone to Mr. Poplawski's house "and he began to argue with me and call me names. When I argued back he grabbed me by my hair and said, 'Do you think I'm going to let you talk to me like that? I don't let anyone talk to me like that."' He threatened to kill her, the records show. In a form asking Miss Gladish to list all weapons Mr. Poplawski had used, she listed "gun that the defendant says is buried in the park near his house." Less than a month later, police sought Mr. Poplawski for violating a protection-from-abuse order after he went to Miss Gladish's workplace, a King's Restaurant, and asked her to marry him. He then moved to the West Palm Beach, Fla., area. Mr. Perkovic said he worked there as a glazier for two years. Two years later, back in Pittsburgh, Mr. Poplawski wrote on MySpace of the episode: "She's lucky I didn't kill that broad myself. Hahaha." This guy was known to be violent and in violation of restraining orders yet still had guns - legally it seems. I'd just like to make it so that people like this cop killing, racist, woman abusing, fuckwad didn't have guns. Yeah, I guess that makes me the bad guy.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 April 6, 2009 QuoteIn this particular case, licensing and more stringent background checks could have kept guns (at least legally purchased ones) out of his hands. Odd, the news stories don't show any felony convictions carrying a year or more sentence and/or adjudication of mental incompetency. Maybe you can explain how your licensing or 'more stringent background checks' are going to prevent this in the future.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #16 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat do you think we could do to absolutely ensure that "mentally disturbed" people are never in possession of guns? Pretty sure you really don't wanna know, but it includes licensing. I really do want to know, and I'm really curious what sort of licensing is going to completely prevent "mentally disturbed" people from obtaining guns. I'm also curious which "mentally disturbed" people would not be allowed to have guns and who would get to decide this. Why does it have to be "completely prevent" or nothing? What's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 April 6, 2009 QuoteWhat's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system? What solution is that? It's ironic how liberals are willing to let thousands of guilty violent people go free, rather than risk a death penalty for someone who is innocent. And at the same time, they're willing to deny millions of innocent Americans their constitutional right to own a gun, in order to stop one guilty person. Doesn't that seem to be a logical contradiction? Ah, but I guess in the minds of gun-o-phobes, innocent gun owners must be guilty of something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 April 6, 2009 Quotethe present BROKEN system? Aren't you supposed to be in a precognition tank preventing this?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #19 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn this particular case, licensing and more stringent background checks could have kept guns (at least legally purchased ones) out of his hands. Odd, the news stories don't show any felony convictions carrying a year or more sentence and/or adjudication of mental incompetency. Maybe you can explain how your licensing or 'more stringent background checks' are going to prevent this in the future. This wasn't just some Boy Scout that just snapped one day. Go ahead Neal, read the guy's story anywhere you'd like and try to defend this douche bag's right to own weapons. The douche bag is a freekin' poster boy for additional gun control. If we can't agree that people like THIS shouldn't be allowed to have guns, then there is no hope at all for any sort of reasonable discussion. Seriously.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 April 6, 2009 QuoteI will admit that no amount of licensing will "completely prevent," if you'll admit that it will at least stop some. Yes, it might stop some. And I'll agree that in this case, with this guy's history, he should not have been allowed to legally have possession of guns. I sort of doubt that licensing would have _stopped_ this guy from having guns, but I do agree that he should not have legally had them. I was more concerned with the idea that "mentally disturbed" people should not have guns, because that's a pretty broad category. But it sounds like this guy had an actual violent criminal record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 April 6, 2009 QuoteThis wasn't just some Boy Scout that just snapped one day. Go ahead Neal, read the guy's story anywhere you'd like and try to defend this douche bag's right to own weapons. I did - the stories linked in the post I answered. The information wasn't in those stories. I did see your link to other stories, but still saw no reference to felony convictions and/or mental illness adjudications. So, if you HAVE evidence of such, trot it out. If not, why don't you explain how something that he was not arrested for would show up in ANY background check? QuoteIf we can't agree that people like THIS shouldn't be allowed to have guns, then there is no hope at all for any sort of reasonable discussion. I keep hearing the word 'reasonable', but it only seems to come into play when the gun owners have to put up with some new restrictions - why is that, Paul? Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 April 6, 2009 QuoteAre you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right? The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it. Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking. You're grasping at straws.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteAre you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right? The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it. Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking. You're grasping at straws. Ok, so you have no problem with restricting rights that YOU don't agree with...gotcha. I'll make sure to remind you later.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right? The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it. Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking. You're grasping at straws. Ok, so you have no problem with restricting rights that YOU don't agree with...gotcha. I'll make sure to remind you later. No. I'm fine restricting any rights you can find that can be used by people laying in wait to kill cops. Again, go for it. Show me one.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #25 April 6, 2009 QuoteGo ahead, read the guy's story anywhere you'd like and try to defend this douche bag's right to own weapons. The douche bag is a freekin' poster boy for additional gun control. If we can't agree that people like THIS shouldn't be allowed to have guns, then there is no hope at all for any sort of reasonable discussion. Seriously. What item(s) in his background would you like to see added as lawful reasons to deny gun ownership? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
