Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PITTSBURGH – A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
Three officers were killed, said a police official at the scene who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Police spokeswoman Diane Richard would only say that at least five officers were wounded, but wouldn't give any other details.

Police planned to release more details at a mid-afternoon news conference Saturday.
The man who fired at the officers was arrested after a several-hour standoff. One witness reported hearing hundreds of shots.

The shootings occurred just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot March 21 in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

Police did not immediately release the gunman's identity, but his friends identified him as Richard Poplawski, 23. They described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

Vire, 23, said Poplawski once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn’t successful. He said Poplawski owned an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum.

At 7 a.m., Sciullo and Mayhle responded to a 911 call from Poplawski’s mother, who remained holed up in the basement during the entire dispute and escaped unharmed, Harper said. When they arrived at the home, Sciullo was immediately shot in the head. Mayhle, who was right behind him, was also shot in the head.

“It appears he was lying in wait for the officers,” Harper said.

Kelly, who was on his way home after completing his overnight shift when he heard the call for help, rushed to the scene and was killed trying to help Sciullo and Mayhle, Harper said. SWAT teams and other officers arrived and were immediately fired on as well.

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.

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."



I'm actually for hunting and hand guns. But the fear that some have whipped up about this and other things is starting to border on blind panic and hysteria. The PEice The other day featured how Obama wanted to turn the us into a fascist state with the help of the french government, and how he actually works for the king of Saudi Arabia. If you think these are tabloids you'd be wrong, they come from the most watched news channel in the U.S.A. Now there are plenty enough things to blast the prez over. But,Is sending people into a blind panic the way to do it?

Your thoughts?

Sounds like a crazy guy, especially with the food tray incident that apparently happened prior.

Also, siding with France? That's our big enemy? France?

Yep France...can't make this stuff up.

But incidents like this are what make people want to ban handguns. The world's going down the toilet.

Yeah, I don't know if anyone remembers but in the gun threads I was saying it wasn't the ownership of guns in the US that should be a concern, but the siege mentality and loonie politics surrounding so much gun ownership. This is what I meant.

The ridiculous levels of fear being drummed up by the far right media doesn't help either.

Um you don't have to be a member of the "far right" (whatever that is) or a loony to be concerned about the direction the country is heading in. More specificly given the records of the both the president and the VP on the subject fears about the future of firearms ownership in the US are well founded.

That being said, the shooter in this case was a scumbag and a lunatic. (cop killers are amongst the lowest of the low of the criminal world in my opinion) The last thing we need right now is more ammunition (no pun indended) for the gun grabbers. Two mass shootings in as many weeks and two multible victim cop killings....could it be any worse?

TR

Two mass shootings in as many weeks and two multible victim cop killings....could it be any worse?

Its as if easy access to assault rifles is a bad idea! Getting off the ban-wagon (pun!) though my feelings about gun laws have been stated before. This is simply an issue of an insane man being allowed much too much freedom (yeah I said it). When you are going to hand out device made specifically to kill lots of people quickly maybe you should actually perform the background checks everything thinks happens.

Seriously, who the hell gave this man an AK-47?

"Assault rifles"?
You mean that class of guns that (especially in typically untrained criminal hands) are only marginally more dangerous than tradtional sporting guns and that are (despite what you see on the movies and TV) are used in but a tiny minority of real world crimes? Those guns?

Son, have you actually ever bought a real firearm? Or are you just basing your views on what you have heard on the web and seen on TV?

TR

Son, have you actually ever bought a real firearm? Or are you just basing your views on what you have heard on the web and seen on TV?

Actually I've fired a chinese variant of the AK47 (now considered to be "antique"). And I'm not your son. You would have to be paralyzed to be unable to utilize that weapon in a deadly fashion. It's point and click. There's a kick obviously, but to be quite honest within 2 clips I was hitting targets 300 meters out with relative accuracy.

You're just wrong here.

"Assault rifles"?
You mean that class of guns that (especially in typically untrained criminal hands) are only marginally more dangerous than tradtional sporting guns and that are (despite what you see on the movies and TV) are used in but a tiny minority of real world crimes? Those guns?

Yes, the military grade of weapon someone sold the insane guy that just shot 4 cops and wounded five others. Thats the class. Feel free to ignore the rest of my post and focus on waving your e-penis around.

Actually I've fired a chinese variant of the AK47 (now considered to be "antique"). And I'm not your son. You would have to be paralyze to be unable to utilize that weapon in a deadly fashion. It's point and click. There's a kick obviously, but to be quite honest within 2 clips I was hitting targets 300 meters out with relative accuracy.

Magazines.
You are obviously a very young person, so "son" is apropriate.

Anyway, the same can be said in regard to most conventional rifles. The media created class of "assault weapons" are labled such mostly due to cosmetic differences like pistol grips and carry handles rather than actual performance.
Try enducating yourself on actual facts about guns and gun crime rather than spouting off and making yourself look foolish.

and...

Feel free to ignore the rest of my post and focus on waving your e-penis around.

Charming and oh so mature....
Isn't it past your bed time?

TR

Magazines.
You are obviously a very young person, so "son" is apropriate.

I'm not in the military, I don't care what you call them. They are the little curved metal box that goes in the gun. They hold the bullets. Also son is not appropriate as I am not your son. Nor do I believe I would want to be.

Anyway, the same can be said in regard to most conventional rifles. The media created class of "assault weapons" are labled such mostly due to cosmetic differences like pistol grips and carry handles rather than actual performance.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

It's cute how you say things like that then claim I should educate myself. The ak-47 is the most ubiquitous assault rifle on the planet. How can you say that it's a media created term with even the tiniest hint of seriousness?

Charming and oh so mature....
Isn't it past your bed time?

Nah, here at casadelshuma we can bicker all night. Ask anyone.

Regardless, do you want to talk about the point of my post? That being the willingness of someone to sell a deranged individual a military grade assault rifle? Isn't there a system of checks to prevent such things

Why doesn't Trench agree not to call Shuma his son and Shuma agree not to call Trench cute?

Then everyone can have more happiness.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why doesn't Trench agree not to call Shuma his son and Shuma agree not to call Trench cute?

Then everyone can have more happiness.

Don't take cute away from me! It's the only term of ironic/sarcastic endearment I have .

I'm not advocating anything here, but having weapons readily available that are designed specifically to take down multiple targets with minimal training quickly and easily are being used by people to kill multiple other people in sprees. I"m not certain that kicking around the idea of restricting in some way access to those weapons shouldn't be part of the debate.

I mean, obviously there's a lot to the debate, and I'm pretty sure that no weapons ban could have prevented any of the recent shootings, but a steady headed examination of the data and a narrowly tailored restriction might be useful. It might not, but it's at least worth the discussion, in my opinion.

And IIRC, "assault rifle" has a pretty set definition (a rapid fire rifle), while "assault weapon" was simply the term used in the law, and then media.

The ak-47 is the most ubiquitous assault rifle on the planet. How can you say that it's a media created term with even the tiniest hint of seriousness?

Because "assault weapon" when broadly applied to guns that cosmeticly resemble military weapons is a media created term. Look at the defintion you posted for instance. An "assault rifle" is a weapon that "select fire". That is to say it's capable of both full and semi-auto fire. The clas of gun that the media calls "assault weapons" are all semi-automatic....like many sporting guns. Full auto firearms are already highly regulated and have been so since 1934. Illegal examples are almost never used in real world crimes and there has been but a single example in the US of a legally held full auto being used in a crime.
Once again, educate yourself before spouting off and soundng like a fool on an international level.

I'm not in the military, I don't care what you call them (magazines)

Then don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't even know the basic terminology.

Also son is not appropriate as I am not your son. Nor do I believe I would want to be.

Probably not...but you would have least learned how to behave in public. But like you pointed out in the other thread many people use their anonymity an an excuse to act like an ass...son.

Regardless, do you want to talk about the point of my post? That being the willingness of someone to sell a deranged individual a military grade assault rifle? Isn't there a system of checks to prevent such things

He fell through the cracks. That's unfortunate, but it happens. But like I said, have you ever bought a real firearm? (I doubt it given your probable age) I'm not sure what the law in PA is like, but here in Texas the gun dealer does have to phone in a background check on anyone he sells a firearm to. The buyer must also fill out a form that details his background, prior convictions, if he's been institutionalized, a drug user, etc. It's not fool proof, but it's a system that's already in place.
Look, incidents like this are a real tragedy. However they are rare when it comes to real world gun crimes. Their very rarity is at least in part what makes them so note worthy. New legislation that will mostly effect the law abiding gun owner rather than criminals is not the answer and should not be created in response to these high profile yet rare crimes. But I fear that Obama, Biden, and a rubber stamp Dem dominated congress will use things like this as an excuse to pass new more restrictive laws.

TR

Once again, educate yourself before spouting off and soundng like a fool on an international level.

I have not once in this entire thread used the term assault weapon. Can you read? I have said assault rifle every single time, which has a very specific meaning. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth at least try and make sure I've said them.

Then don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't even know the basic terminology.

Next time you have an opinion on nuclear fission technologies I'll ask if you have my level of experience with nuclear reactors. If not you better be prepared to not have an opinion, because you won't.

Probably not...but you would have least learned how to behave in public. But like you pointed out in the other thread many people use their anonymity an an excuse to act like an ass...son.

You are the most mature poster on any forum on the planet in the history of the internet. You are the pinnacle. I bow to you're absolute grasp of proper behavior.

He fell through the cracks. That's unfortunate, but it happens. But like I said, have you ever bought a real firearm? (I doubt it given your probable age) I'm not sure what the law in PA is like, but here in Texas the gun dealer does have to phone in a background check to anyone he sells a firearm to. The buyer must also fill out a form that details his background, prior convictions, if he's been institutionalized, a drug user, etc. It's not fool proof, but it's a system that's already in place.

I'm 22, and the system doesn't work. It's relatively easy to purchase weapons at gun shows and other large events without proper certificate. Though it's good to know you at least know the laws in your own state.

Look, incidents like this are a real tragedy. However they are rare when it comes to real world gun crimes. Their very rarity is at least in part what makes them so note worthy. New legislation that will mostly effect the law abiding gun owner rather than criminals is not the answer and should not be created in response to these high profile yet rare crimes. But I fear that Obama, Biden, and a rubber stamp Dem dominated congress will use things like this as an excuse to pass new more restrictive laws.

It's quite possible. However my personal beliefs aside I didn't advocate one way or the other. I was noting the utter failure of the system set in place that gave this man a high caliber assault rife to kill people with.

TR

Don't sign your posts when you have a five line signature and a name above your avatar. This isn't post mail.

Was it the AK47 that was used?

I have not once in this entire thread used the term assault weapon. Can you read? I have said assault rifle every single time, which has a very specific meaning. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth at least try and make sure I've said them.

Except I can almost 100% garentee he didn't use an assault rifle.

You are the most mature poster on any forum on the planet in the history of the internet. You are the pinnacle. I bow to you're absolute grasp of proper behavior.

God, you are an idiot.

I'm 22

Could have fooled me....

I was noting the utter failure of the system set in place that gave this man a high caliber assault rife to kill people with.

He most likley did not use an assault rifle. That's by your own definition. And you consider 7.62x39 to be "high caliber"? Wow. People with such an ignorance in regards to firearms should refrain from discussing these issues.

TR

Orkeosaurus wrote:Was it the AK47 that was used?

Who knows, though given the length of the shootout I would hazard a guess that he was packing more than just a pistol. Given that his friends stated that he had multiple high powered weapons he probably could have just held them off with the arsenal. If he had it I doubt he would hesitate to use it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Was it the AK47 that was used?

I've not read the exact weapon this scumbag used, but if they are calling it an AK, it was probably a civillian knock-off of an AK47.

Didn't I say I was hitting the sack?

TR

Except I can almost 100% garentee he didn't use an assault rifle.

You're using your magic intuition here to state that he didn't use the weapon he was stated as having owned in a multiple hour standoff with SWAT in which 5 officers were injured? Do you give stock advice as well?

God, you are an idiot.

Another Gem! I thought you were going to bed.

Could have fooled me....

I'm secretly a 16 year old sinojapaese noodle cook who is on his PS3 using a controller to debate with you. You caught me.

He most likley did not use an assault rifle. That's by your own definition. And you consider 7.62x39 to be "high caliber"? Wow. People with such an ignorance in regards to firearms should refrain from discussing these issues.

7.62 is a fairly high caliber weapon... I mean no, he's not running around with a 50cal or shooting an elephant gun. But 7.62 is pretty damn high as far as personal armaments are concerned. Most man portable assault rifles, carbines, PDF's, SMGs, machine pistols, regular pistols, and crossbows use a smaller caliber round. Now I'm sure by using a bunch of acronyms just now I gave you fodder to tell me I don't know what a gun is for another few pages. have fun!. No sleep for you.


Or are we using rail guns and tank canons on this scale too? Yeah it's small compared to an ICBM.

Actually, it's not that difficult to buy an actual AK-47 on the street, and your local illegal gun dealer doesn't perform background checks. After all, there are literally millions of AK's floating around.

7.62 is the NATO standard for small arms. It is also a very popular caliber for sporting as well.

As far as I understand, the "Assault Weapon" moniker became popular in the 90's under President Clinto and his bill, which I thought was in part drafted and signed by him. This included superflous, cosmetic characterics such as bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, composite stocks, etc. These do not in actuality change the basic functioning of the weapon, which is to fire rounds, they just make it look different and specialized.

Shuma's link to the wiki article had this distinction:

"Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a legal term, separate from the technical definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher
* Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban and have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers."

I actually have one, it is an older surplus Russian SKS fitted for stripper clips. It came with a bayonet/lug. We (father and I) stripped it and put a composite stock (folding), and scope on it.

In the following picture the 7.62 is the 4th cartridge from the right. The military standard cartidge for the M-16 though is the 5.56 which is quite a bit smaller than the 7.62.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartridge_Sample_2.jpg

Watch out for that bayonet mount!

People will stab you with their guns. The police won't be able to shoot them, because they'll be in assault.

I think even most of it's supporters pretty much admit that the Assault Weapons ban was one of the worst carried out ideas to filter up through Washington. One of the best West Wing episodes, "Five Votes Down," explores the bill and it's passage in some depth, if fictionalized.

I can't even think of the proper words that I can use to describe how disgusting this is and how sick it made me feel.

TR had it right when he called cop killers the lowest of the low.

Absolutely terrible, even more considering the fact that they were afraid of something that wasn't even going to happen yet.

Way to go morons, because of you people now families have lost loved ones and now weapons will have a higher chance of getting banned.

Could have peacefully protested. But that makes too much sense I suppose.

Vladsimpaler wrote:I can't even think of the proper words that I can use to describe how disgusting this is and how sick it made me feel.

TR had it right when he called cop killers the lowest of the low.

Absolutely terrible, even more considering the fact that they were afraid of something that wasn't even going to happen yet.

Way to go morons, because of you people now families have lost loved ones and now weapons will have a higher chance of getting banned.

Could have peacefully protested. But that makes too much sense I suppose.

It reminds me a bit of some of the reaction to the infamous Muhammed Cartoons that implied that Islam is overly violent. To protest that shameful insult, there were riots and embassies were literally set on fire.

Likewise, I'm not sure ambushing police is the best way to protest the idea that the government shouldn't disarm the people.

Trench-Raider wrote:Um you don't have to be a member of the "far right" (whatever that is)

Please try reading. I said 'far right media'. It's a term used to refer to the portion of the media which spends a lot of time talking about certain freedoms, saying foreign policy should be more aggressive and complaing about Democrats. If you want to talk about politics it's really one of those areas you need to be familiar with.

or a loony to be concerned about the direction the country is heading in. More specificly given the records of the both the president and the VP on the subject fears about the future of firearms ownership in the US are well founded.

No, you absolutely have to be a loonie to have spent eight years silently while one president expanded the powers of the executive to unprecedented levels and lied about taking his country into war, and then get all panicky when another president does absolutely nothing.

This thread is closed.