Mentally ill shooter kills three policeman in Pittsburgh

Chalk another one up for the NRA. The families of three policeman in Pittsburgh have had their lives shattered by a AK47 wielding gunman who felt his right to own firearms was being threatened. Here is part of the story.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
He always said that if someone tried to take his weapons away he would do what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself."
Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama's election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.
"He said he'll be ready if there's ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."
It's time for voters to take a stand against the gun violence that is destroying lives across the country.

sparks wrote:

It's time for voters to take a stand against the gun violence that is destroying lives across the country.

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns. Are we going to take away the cars next? What does your Messiah say about the deaths on the highway? Aren't you programmed to just go along with what He says?

Quote :

Police 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/04/police-several-pa-officer_n_183130.html

Anyone wanna bet that this creep got all of his news from Fox or wingnut hate radio?

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns. Are we going to take away the cars next?

Well, we do restrict the use of automobiles under certain circumstances, don't we? So that means you're not for complete deregulation either, right?

Here's another article on the incident.

Quote :

A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he recently had been upset about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

. . .

Edward Perkovic said Poplawski, his best friend, 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 Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."

It'll be interesting to find out what kind of legal history this guy had.

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

The guy was a nut case. Lost his job, and paranoid that the government was going to take away his guns. Probably off his meds too. What does this have to do with George W. Bush? You people place a lot of blame, when many of these incidents could have been prevented. George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he? And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

Although your questions weren't specifically addressed, I guess you still got your answer, Heretic.

LoisLane wrote:

George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he? And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

Apparently, just the mere mention of any of President Bush's policies automatically makes you a "devout follower" of the "Messiah." And the last President's policies are totally off limits to criticism because he's no longer the President, and because, after all... he "didn't wreck the entire world," now did he?

So, Heretic, the bottom line is that you really need to "get a grip."

That is priceless.

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

Although your questions weren't specifically addressed, I guess you still got your answer, Heretic.

LoisLane wrote:

George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he? And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

Apparently, just the mere mention of any of President Bush's policies automatically makes you a "devout follower" of the "Messiah." And the last President's policies are totally off limits to criticism because he's no longer the President, and because, after all... he "didn't wreck the entire world," now did he?

So, Heretic, the bottom line is that you really need to "get a grip."

That is priceless.

What did killing three cops in Pittsburgh on a Saturday morning have to do with George W. Bush? Wake up, people. He lost. He's gone. Concentrate on the promises from your Messiah, and stop the blame game. Like Obama's policies, they mean nothing!

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

Although your questions weren't specifically addressed, I guess you still got your answer, Heretic.

LoisLane wrote:

George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he? And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

Apparently, just the mere mention of any of President Bush's policies automatically makes you a "devout follower" of the "Messiah." And the last President's policies are totally off limits to criticism because he's no longer the President, and because, after all... he "didn't wreck the entire world," now did he?

So, Heretic, the bottom line is that you really need to "get a grip."

That is priceless.

What did killing three cops in Pittsburgh on a Saturday morning have to do with George W. Bush? Wake up, people. He lost. He's gone. Concentrate on the promises from your Messiah, and stop the blame game. Like Obama's policies, they mean nothing!

Nobody said that President Bush was responsible. Unless I missed something, Heretic asked you a simple question about post 9/11 policies, and you started accusing everybody of "blaming the killings on Bush."

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Nobody said that President Bush was responsible. Unless I missed something, Heretic asked you a simple question about post 9/11 policies, and you started accusing everybody of "blaming the killings on Bush."

You apparently do not proofread your own drivel.

Please show us where anyone blamed Bush.

happy jack wrote:

Very good post.
And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

Where do you think these lunatics get their ideas from? Here's an ad the NRA produced...Pay special attention to where the guy says "No politician is going to take away my guns and ammo". I think you owe Sparks an apology.



Here's even more glaring evidence of the NRA's role....

NRA Targets Obama
September 22, 2008
Updated: September 29, 2008
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

more@ http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Very good post.
And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

Where do you think these lunatics get their ideas from? Here's an ad the NRA produced...Pay special attention to where the guy says "No politician is going to take away my guns and ammo". I think you owe Sparks an apology.

So, an idea killed these three police officers???
Odd, because all the articles I read about this gave me the distinct impression that they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun.
.

. You're right Jack, these three police officers were killed a deranged man with several guns,including an AK47. We might as well include the pictures of the three police officers who were shot point blank in a cold blooded,cowardly ambush.. After reading through the news accounts of the ambush, it does sound like the shooter was influenced by the steady wave of distortions coming from the NRA and other gun rights groups in the media. These distortions include the contention that Obama is trying to take our guns. Since Obama has been elected into office, I have yet to see him even mention guns in any of his speeches, nor have I seen the White House endorse any new proposals for gun control. Yet the NRA runs daily "updates" on their website
detailing what they claim are Obama's attempts to "take our guns". So, it can be argued that the NRA's constant promotion of inflammatory ideas did contribute to three police officers in Pittsburgh dying.

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Automobiles kill more people every day that guns.

And terrorism, at least here in the States. Did you oppose most of the intrusive, ineffective, and expensive policies Bush instituted as a result of 9/11 too? Or do you not stray far out of the Red vs. Blue stereotype anymore than sparks or Artie?

OK, got it now? Can't you go back 5 or 6 posts to see what the commotion is all about.
Again, I ask, how is George W. Bush involved?

happy jack wrote:

[b]So, an idea killed these three police officers???
Odd, because all the articles I read about this gave me the distinct impression that they were killed by a crazy bastard with a gun.

Yeah,a crazy person that somehow got the idea that Obama was going to take away his guns,thanks to the NRA and other wingnut kooks.

Quote :

You want me to apologize to sparks?
You're even more amusing than I remember you, Artie.
Because that's funny.
That's very funny.

Yes,you should apologize. You made no attempt to refute what he posted with facts. Instead you chose to insult him with this:

Quote :

And if you had demonstrated precisely how the NRA was responsible for this tragedy, it may have even passed for a coherent post.

I love the way you Dems spin into a political event.

What about all the murders committed every day by the gangbangers who have their weapons ILLEGALLY? You can take away the guns from the law abiding citizens, and the criminals will still have theirs. No gun laws are going to stop the bad guys from packing heat, all they will do, is make the honest people defenseless.

LoisLane wrote:

I love the way you Dems spin into a political event.

"Spin"? It's not the Democrats that are promoting the lie that Obama wants to take your guns. It's people like Glen Beck,Chuck Norris,and Michelle Bachmann R-wingnuts that are inciting these nuts.

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I love the way you Dems spin into a political event.

"Spin"? It's not the Democrats that are promoting the lie that Obama wants to take your guns. It's people like Glen Beck,Chuck Norris,and Michelle Bachmann R-wingnuts that are inciting these nuts.

So answer the god damned question! What did George W. Bush have to do with it?

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I love the way you Dems spin into a political event.

"Spin"? It's not the Democrats that are promoting the lie that Obama wants to take your guns. It's people like Glen Beck,Chuck Norris,and Michelle Bachmann R-wingnuts that are inciting these nuts.

So answer the god damned question! What did George W. Bush have to do with it?

Nobody said Bush was responsible or had anything to do with it. Move on already!

Here's a few more tidbits that back up my claims that the far right is at least partially responsible....

Quote :

"He was really into politics and really into the First and Second amendment. One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples' right to defend themselves. He never spoke of going out to murder or to kill," said Edward Perkovic, who described himself as Mr. Poplawski's lifelong best friend.

Quote :

Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.
(The Alex Jones Show is a nationally syndicated news/talk show based out of Austin, TX. The show is syndicated by the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM and FM radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large internet based audience.)

Around the same time, he joined Florida-based Stormfront, which has long been a clearinghouse Web site for far-right groups. He posted photographs of his tattoo, an eagle spread across his chest.)

"I was considering gettin' life runes on the outside of my calfs," he wrote. Life runes are a common symbol among white supremacists, notably followers of The National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group linked to an array of violent organizations.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960750-53.stm

LoisLane wrote:

The guy was a nut case. Lost his job, and paranoid that the government was going to take away his guns. Probably off his meds too.

Who should obviously be able to carry as many automatic firearms as physically possible and ignore any and all traffic controls too, right? See, you're not against all gun control...

LoisLane wrote:

What does this have to do with George W. Bush?

Little. You did however bring up probability and risk assessment, so I simply decided to test a theory. You seem to believe that a vote for a political candidate somehow equates to deification. I wanted to see if you extended such bizarre beliefs to your own range of the political spectrum. Since you scoffed at the idea of gun control to control the small probability of gun violence over the far more likely threat of automobiles, logic would dictate that you would also scoff at the ineffective and far more intrusive procedures instituted against the even less likely threat of terrorism. My theory proved correct; it appears you're just as much a "disciple" of your own party as you perceive sparks and Artie to be and incapable of criticism when if falls in the red. Mmmm... vapid partisan politics. Juicy.

LoisLane wrote:

You people place a lot of blame, when many of these incidents could have been prevented.

You're quite fixated on this "blame" thing. It's as if you've never seen it before, which is particularly puzzling to me because in my experience, that's pretty much how the world appears to work. Generally, when things go terribly, terribly wrong, blame is assigned to the person at fault for such errors and the egregious incompetence is penalized. This hold individuals accountable for their actions as well as acting as a deterrent against future screw ups. And this is from grade school on up all the way to my current place of employment. As a matter of fact, I think we have an entire justice system built on it. I'm not alone in my experience and perceptions, am I? Should we not hold people accountable for their actions? Should we let this individual go after shooting three police officers or are we allowed to fault him for their deaths? Or maybe... Did you go to one of those schools that didn't have letter grades or ever tell you you're wrong? Currently work in some hippie commune or something?

LoisLane wrote:

George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he?

No, not the entire world.

LoisLane wrote:

And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

See? Again with the "blame" thing... To quote a phrase, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." And I don't remember typing "war on terrorism" anywhere. But it was kind of a silly phrase, no? Who wages war on a military tactic? How do you wage war on a military tactic? Up next... the War on Flanking! The War on Trench Warfare!!

Scorpion wrote:

Although your questions weren't specifically addressed, I guess you still got your answer, Heretic.

Oh yes. Definitely.

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

The guy was a nut case. Lost his job, and paranoid that the government was going to take away his guns. Probably off his meds too.

Who should obviously be able to carry as many automatic firearms as physically possible and ignore any and all traffic controls too, right? See, you're not against all gun control...

LoisLane wrote:

What does this have to do with George W. Bush?

Little. You did however bring up probability and risk assessment, so I simply decided to test a theory. You seem to believe that a vote for a political candidate somehow equates to deification. I wanted to see if you extended such bizarre beliefs to your own range of the political spectrum. Since you scoffed at the idea of gun control to control the small probability of gun violence over the far more likely threat of automobiles, logic would dictate that you would also scoff at the ineffective and far more intrusive procedures instituted against the even less likely threat of terrorism. My theory proved correct; it appears you're just as much a "disciple" of your own party as you perceive sparks and Artie to be and incapable of criticism when if falls in the red. Mmmm... vapid partisan politics. Juicy.

LoisLane wrote:

You people place a lot of blame, when many of these incidents could have been prevented.

You're quite fixated on this "blame" thing. It's as if you've never seen it before, which is particularly puzzling to me because in my experience, that's pretty much how the world appears to work. Generally, when things go terribly, terribly wrong, blame is assigned to the person at fault for such errors and the egregious incompetence is penalized. This hold individuals accountable for their actions as well as acting as a deterrent against future screw ups. And this is from grade school on up all the way to my current place of employment. As a matter of fact, I think we have an entire justice system built on it. I'm not alone in my experience and perceptions, am I? Should we not hold people accountable for their actions? Should we let this individual go after shooting three police officers or are we allowed to fault him for their deaths? Or maybe... Did you go to one of those schools that didn't have letter grades or ever tell you you're wrong? Currently work in some hippie commune or something?

LoisLane wrote:

George W. Bush didn't wreck the entire world, now did he?

No, not the entire world.

LoisLane wrote:

And your Messiah doesn't use the words "war on terrorism" anymore. As a devout follower, neither should you. George W. Bush isn't the President anymore, is he? So are you going to blame everything on him? Get a grip.

See? Again with the "blame" thing... To quote a phrase, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." And I don't remember typing "war on terrorism" anywhere. But it was kind of a silly phrase, no? Who wages war on a military tactic? How do you wage war on a military tactic? Up next... the War on Flanking! The War on Trench Warfare!!

Scorpion wrote:

Although your questions weren't specifically addressed, I guess you still got your answer, Heretic.

Oh yes. Definitely.

You were the one who brought George W. Bush's policies into the debate! Why?