US police officer fatally shot while writing ticket

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Yeah well I can easily google some stuff in another tab and barf it up on here too. 

 

You clearly missed where I said "Legally buy and go through the process to legally carry"

 

"Legally purchased" clearly means they have met the criteria to "legally carry".

Trying to be pedantic does not make you right.

 

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

 

Thats because I'm talking about the legal, law abiding americans that go through the process of getting a legal gun, and getting a legal carry permit, passing all the background checks and whatnot, don't kill cops. My original reply was to the poster who said that the 'carry regulations are clearly a problem' when in fact the people that legally carry are not the problem. This was obviously incredibly hard for you to grasp judging by your childish emoticon tangent.

 

 

If one legally buys a weapon and keeps it and home, why does one need a "carry permit"?

Bear in mind, many of the officers shot are responding to domestic disturbances.

 

Added: If I remember correctly, legislation to block known domestic abusers from owning firearms is one of the many measures shot down by the NRA (excuse the pun).

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Chicog

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Unfortunately for you, this is a public forum, ergo you were.

 

 

No, I was trying to stay out of knowingly getting into a debate with an Englishman who has a US chip on his shoulder who constantly haunts the US political threads. Its a public forum of course & say what you want. It was a personal choice. 

 

Judging by the amount of consecutive replies to my posts, you have taken it personally. Deal with it. 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Chicog said:

"Legally purchased" clearly means they have met the criteria to "legally carry".

Trying to be pedantic does not make you right.

 

No they don't. Not at all. You have no idea what you are talking about. Buying and carrying are 2 separate procedures. Even in Texas. 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Chicog said:

I think you'll find you wrong on that one, too.

 

Matter of opinion. What I said stands. 

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Added: If I remember correctly, legislation to block known domestic abusers from owning firearms is one of the many measures shot down by the NRA (excuse the pun).

 

False, misdemeanor domestic violence is one of only a couple of misdemeanors that will exempt you, for life, from owning a firearm. Its called the Laughtenburg Amendment. Its a federal law. Nation Wide. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

False, misdemeanor domestic violence is one of only a couple of misdemeanors that will exempt you, for life, from owning a firearm. Its called the Laughtenburg Amendment. Its a federal law. Nation Wide. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

 

That only affects convicted domestic abusers.

 

Quote

Current federal law bans people convicted of abusing their spouse, including those placed under a restraining order for such a crime, from carrying a gun. It generally doesn’t extend to abuse by a dating partner, or someone who is not a spouse.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/domestic-abuse-victims-testify-support-new-gun-control

Edited November 21, 2016 by Chicog

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Matter of opinion. What I said stands. 

 

It's not a matter of opinion at all. It's a matter of fact.

[ClutchClark]

Over 300,000,000 firearms in the US.

 

How does anyone propose getting rid of them?

 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

Over 300,000,000 firearms in the US.

 

How does anyone propose getting rid of them?

 

Dunno apparently we should just be like the UK & Stuff cause their so perfect. 

[Chicog]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Over 300,000,000 firearms in the US.

 

How does anyone propose getting rid of them?

 

 

 

I don't think you can. But you can get rid of the extremely dangerous ones and take more steps to keep them out of the hands of those that would do harm with them.

 

Would that not be worth if it saved hundreds of lives a year? Or thousands? Would you a put a human price on it?

Pointless comparing it with the UK because we took our chance to remove them before it got out of hand.

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, Chicog said:

That only affects convicted domestic abusers.

 

Um yeah as it should be. 

 

"The Guardian" is hardly a place to go looking for federal law study. Domestic Violence covers anyone living in a household, family members, bro & sis, child and father, boyfriend or girlfriend. All inclusive. Its a "domestic" charge otherwise it would be just assault/battery. 

 

Your post is nonsense. They are not banned from carrying they are lifetime banned from even owning a gun period. They would not pass a background check in their lifetime. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Chicog said:

I don't think you can. But you can get rid of the extremely dangerous ones and take more steps to keep them out of the hands of those that would do harm with them.

 

Would that not be worth if it saved hundreds of lives a year? Or thousands? Would you a put a human price on it?

Pointless comparing it with the UK because we took our chance to remove them before it got out of hand.

 

You do realize that the gun used in the Dallas police shooting of those police officers was a Soviet SKS and the polar opposite of an "assault weapon" right? It does not even have a detachable magazine. 

[JetsetBkk]

5 hours ago, rijb said:

8 hours ago, bkkrooftop said:

texas has the most liberal gun laws maybe in the ctry.  u reap what u sow. 

 

Duh!  Trying reading instead of making silly quotes.

 

Crime rates in Texas cities fell more over the past two years than in other cities across the nation, a new study finds.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/22/crime-rates-fall-texas-cities/

 

Dallas’ 2014 murder rate was its lowest since 1930 — the year Bonnie and Clyde met at a West Dallas house party.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2015/01/07/dallas-murder-rate-falls-to-lowest-point-since-1930

 

Plano Texas - most guns, safest town

 

[ClutchClark]

A total of 57 U.S. law enforcement officers have been killed by gunfire so far this year, a 68 percent increase from the same period in 2015.

[ClutchClark]

Beyond his long career in law enforcement, [Officer} Marconi also had the distinction of being a gay officer...

 

http://patch.com/us/across-america/san-antonio-cop-shot-outside-police-headquarters

 

So much for the stereotype projected by the media.

Law Enforcement has the same "diversity" as the rest of the community they serve.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

The suspect is an African-American male.

 

 

[ClutchClark]

A second police officer was shot in a separate shooting incident in St Louis on Sunday as well. In that shooting, a vehicle pulled up alongside the police cruiser and opened fire on the officer then sped away. 

 

The shooter was also an African-American male.

 

Hate crimes?

 

 

 

 

[nottocus]

12 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Cops Lives Matter.

No. Only black lives matter according to the blacks.

[Graemej100]

If the cop had a gun this would never have happened. When will America learn that the answer to stopping gun violence is to arm everybody and that 'no guns' is not the answer to stopping gun related killings. The fact that it is the answer in most other countries in the world is purely co-incidental. 

[Chicog]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Um yeah as it should be. 

 

"The Guardian" is hardly a place to go looking for federal law study. Domestic Violence covers anyone living in a household, family members, bro & sis, child and father, boyfriend or girlfriend. All inclusive. Its a "domestic" charge otherwise it would be just assault/battery. 

 

Your post is nonsense. They are not banned from carrying they are lifetime banned from even owning a gun period. They would not pass a background check in their lifetime. 

 

It states quite clearly that it doesn't apply to any but spouses.

So I'm not quite sure you would answer my post by going off at some meaningless tangent.

I assume you didn't actually bother reading the article.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

It states quite clearly that it doesn't apply to any but spouses.

So I'm not quite sure you would answer my post by going off at some meaningless tangent.

I assume you didn't actually bother reading the article.

 

Dude, misdemeanor domestic violence is ANY family member, bro and sis, father, mother, boyfriend & girlfriend cohabitation, etc... Even gay relationships for christ sake. 

 

Im telling you this 100% sure as shit that it is 100% not just a spouse. Can be a brother, father, boyfriend, girlfriend... Any relationship in a "domestic setting. 

 

I do not need to read your dumb article because I'm an american gun rights advocate and know the damn law. Im also a CWP holder and I have family in the police force. 

 

You are the one thats for some stupid reason trying to (as a foreigner) debate with an American about American Gun laws. I know the law. You clearly don't. 

 

Fact - If a person catches a domestic violence charge they are banned for life. Its not just a spouse. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

 

Quote

Domestic violence (also named domestic abuse, battering, or family violence) is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation. Intimate partner violence is violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner. Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships, and can involve violence against children in the family or, in some U.S. states, violence against a roommate.^[1]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

 

Quote

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,^[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)^[2]), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Strange

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Dude, misdemeanor domestic violence is ANY family member, bro and sis, father, mother, boyfriend & girlfriend cohabitation, etc... Even gay relationships for christ sake. 

 

Im telling you this 100% sure as shit that it is 100% not just a spouse. Can be a brother, father, boyfriend, girlfriend... Any relationship in a "domestic setting. 

 

This is true.

 

It simply means that the victim and aggressor are part of the same family or household and share the same domicile. 

 

Its interesting but most Organizations for Battered Women or that specialize in DV victims define it as "Violence against an Intimate Partner" as Chicog has stated; however, in the context of the Law and how it relates to gun ownership, it is the broader definition described by Strange.

[Chicog]

Clearly you are not understanding the gaps in the law and how the NRA is a constant obstacle. I'll try again.

 

 

Quote

 

Her bill, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, would expand federal law to bar abusive dating partners, individuals under a restraining order and convicted stalkers from buying or owning a gun. Current law already prevents people convicted of domestic abuse from buying or owning a gun.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Klobuchar said that in states such as Minnesota, that require background checks for private handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners than in states that don’t have such checks.

The National Rifle Association opposes Klobuchar’s bill, which has no Republican cosponsors. The NRA sent a letter to members of Congress this summer saying the measure is an attempt to manipulate “emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions.”

 

 

Here's the actual bill. I would suggest you read it before you start lecturing anyone on how well you know the law.

 

 

Quote

 

Summary: H.R.3130 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

Listen to this page

There is one summary for H.R.3130. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (07/21/2015)

Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act

This bill amends the federal criminal code to:

• state that the term "intimate partner" includes a dating partner and any other person subject to a protection order under state domestic or family violence law; and
• expand the term "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to include the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, by a current or former intimate partner.

The bill makes it a crime to knowingly sell or dispose of a firearm to a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking. It also makes it a crime for such convicted stalker to receive or possess a firearm.

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3130/text

 

What's absurd is that the majority of Americans actually favour this kind of legislation; Unfortunately the NRA punch well above their weight.

[Scott]

I notice a few people think that they can post in a demeaning manner toward other members.   Continue to do so at your own peril.