Juror in Pittsburgh 3x Police Murder Trial on Firearms Ownership: "There's got to be a limit."

[John1956PA]

This evening, the jury in the murder case stemming from the firearms slaying of three Pittsburgh police officers returned three death penalty sentences against the defendant. On April 4, 2009, the defendant waged a lengthy gun battle in which he was armed with several firearms, including an assault rifle. Due to pretrial publicity in the Pittsburgh area, the jury was selected in the Harrisburg area which is about 150 miles east of Pittsburgh. After the verdict, members of the jury spoke with reporters at a news conference. One of the jurors stated his astonishment that such a gun battle could take place in an American city. The juror stated that he believes in the right to bear arms, but he added, "There's got to be a limit." The link to the news conference is at http://www.wtae.com/video/28388214/detail.html , but it now appears not to be working.

In my view, I do not think that a limit is possible, or that one would even help. I think that assault rifles are here to stay, and that even one of them in the wrong hands can cause incalculable losses. Even the juror who made the above-noted remark admitted that he did not know how any limit could be possible.

On an unrelated note, a land owner in Beaver County about 30 miles North of Pittsburgh is applying for an exception to a township zoning restriction. The land owner wants to construct a 1,000-yard sniper range for members of the public and police departments to utilize. In an online poll conducted by the Beaver County Times (http://www.timesonline.com) the responses are 2-1 in favor of the township granting the exception.

[jpak]

1. Despite what the GOP/NRA would have you believe - they are not invincible

and the Backlash Cometh

yup

[gejohnston]

3. 40 percent of the population with powerful grass roots machine

careful what you ask for, you might get it. Especially when your side has to resort to some terrorist claiming you can buy machine guns at Wal Mart.

[Logical]

5. For about the 100th time with you, what is your solution to removing 300 million guns.....

from people when they are legal to purchase and no one wants to ban sales.

You never post any real solutions to anything you dislike.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. The backlash started in 1987 and we (pro-RKBA) are it.

And we are kicking gun-controller butt in state after state.

[eqfan592]

8. The Backlash HAS cometh...

...and it's been against the sort of ignorance YOU promote on a daily basis, and has been going on now for almost 20 years.

[derby378]

27. More like 40 years

This all started with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Parts of it are worth keeping, but there's a lot in the GCA that needs to be consigned to the dust bin of history.

[rl6214]

11. Despite what idiots believe it was not an assault rifle

and your backlash is a laughing stock. That's why 49/50 states have some sort of concealed carry.

Backlash...BRING IT ON.

[John1956PA]

12. According to the police chief, the shooter was armed with an AK-47-style rifle.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shootings :

According to Chief of Police Nathan Harper, Poplawski was armed with a semi-automatic AK-47-style rifle . . .

In its report, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette described the weapon as an assault rifle, but I can not find any reference in the report as to the make or model of the firearm. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11174/1155671-53.stm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Just to be clear...

...the military, the firearms industry, et al describes an "assault rifle" in very particular terms. These weapons are select fire, that is they may selectively be switched at will by the operator from semi-auto to full-auto. The AK-47 is globally the most well known instance of this weapon type. Semi-auto lookalikes are not "assault rifles".

One of the various (I forget which) anti-rights groups coined the term "assault weapon" in an attempt to confuse the general public and have various firearms bans enacted. The purported attributes of an "assault weapon" included: a pistol grip, a folding stock, a bayonet lug(?), a grenade launcher??, etc. While a folding stock may make a rifle easier to conceal, none of these other features (to my knowledge) have ever impacted a non-military engagement.

Saying a weapon is an "AK-47 style" rifle is just popular with the media. It partially characterizes the weapon and connotes "evil". :)

[John1956PA]

23. Thanks to all who educated me on the strict definition of "assault rifle."

It seems to me that the rifle which was used in the event was likely semi-automatic only and, therefore, not an assault rifle. The newspaper report states "assault rifle," but the writer likely was unaware (as I was) of the proper terminology. The Police Chief likely knew the distinction, as he stated "AK-47-style rifle." I did not know the distinction until I read the replies in this thread. Thanks to all who educated me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Quite often...

...those with specialized knowledge speak to each other in their own dialect.
Unfortunately, there is frequently no Rosetta stone for the rest of us.

Einstein once said something equivalent to, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
It seems the media shuns the wisdom of theoretical physicists. :(

[cleanhippie]

22. Right, so where is the "assault rifle"?

It seems the Chief knows the difference. Do you?

[krispos42]

17. The backlash to the backlash?

What, you really thing that there's going to be a anti-gun revolution in this country and the gun laws will go back to being stricter?

That all of a sudden, a dozen states or more states will have no concealed-carry permits? That another couple of dozen will have "I'll think about it" concealed-carry permits? That "assault weapons" will be banned again? That there will be an arbitrary magazine limit imposed? That past-limit magazines will be outlawed and confiscated? That waiting periods will stretch into months? That there will be nationwide gun registration? Nationwide ballistic fingerprinting?


Do you really see anything like this happening???

[gejohnston]

2. Sniper or rifle range?

Please do not use loaded and inaccurate language.

In my view, I do not think that a limit is possible, or that one would even help. I think that assault rifles are here to stay, and that even one of them in the wrong hands can cause incalculable losses. Even the juror who made the above-noted remark admitted that he did not know how any limit could be possible.

Everyone is free to their own opinion. I doubt his mind was changed by the trial.

Do you know what an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle ">assault rifle is? They have been tightly regulated since 1934. There is nothing special about scary looking carbines you find at Wal Mart.

[provis99]

9. frankly, I don't see any reason for regulating assault rifles.

If the 2nd Amendment means right to own weapons, then regulating weapons is akin to regulating free speech.

If people can use their free speech whenever they want, they should be allowed to own any weapon they want.

And it is ridiculous to prohibit felons from having guns; do we prevent people who commit slander from ever speaking again?

[Hoyt]

14. Or bombs, grenades?

[gejohnston]

18. they are not small arms

they are explosives. Small arms do not include tanks, mortars, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, B-52s, ICBMs or any of the usual nonsense.

[John1956PA]

13. The headline of the report in the "Beaver County Times" uses the term "Sniper Range"

The headline of the report reads as follows:

Proposed sniper range raises concerns in South Beaver Township

The link for the report is http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/proposed-sniper-range-raises-concerns-in-south-beaver-township/article_3366f2c5-53ea-5edd-9f95-e0596a0a0ecc.html

The report also uses the following term to describe the site:

commercial 1,000-yard precision shooting range

[ileus]

4. another person scared of pistol grips and muzzle breaks.

[Hoyt]

15. Another person afraid of walking out door without a gun or two tucked down their pants.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. You seem to believe that...

...you're an empath.

[petronius]

26. Another? You haven't managed to point out the first one yet, so

saying "another" is a bit premature, don't ya think? :shrug:

[benEzra]

7. There *are* limits, and they've been about the same for the past 80 years.

U.S. citizens are limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 (civilian) small arms of .50 caliber or less. (Exception is made for over-.50-caliber shotguns and hunting rifles, e.g. 12-gauge/.729 caliber shotguns or .577-.700 caliber hunting guns.)

No one can own or touch a gun or ammunition who has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in jail, any felony, or any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent. To buy a gun from any legal dealer, regardless of location, one must pass a Federal background check. Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is restricted, as are disguised firearms and firearms invisible to X-ray.

Carry and use of guns is regulated rather tightly by state law, and most states require a state-issued license to carry a concealed firearm.

BTW, all the fearmongering about "assault weapons" is utter crap. Rifles are the least misused weapons in the United States, and account for fewer murders annually than shoes and bare hands (less than 2.6% of murders in 2009 involved rifles).

[petronius]

10. "Incalculable"? These things must be really dangerous

Just think how many crimes would have been prevented here in the U.S. if assault rifles had never existed...

[aikoaiko]

16. They're already are limits, regulations, and laws regarding gun ownership.

And I'm glad the cop-killer got the death penalty.

[jeepnstein]

21. The limit is already in place.

We're not allowed to use our guns on other people except in cases of self-defense. Wanting to avoid arrest and trial is not a valid reason for using deadly force. Most Americans understand this simple concept.