Deputy and firefighter nearly shot by arrow while arresting drunk

I know bows aren't guns, but they are classified as firearms, just like guns.

This is a strange story. The arrow shot was obviously not an accident, since it happened at about 10 p.m., long after our approximate 5 p.m. December sunsets here in Michigan. No way was this merely a stray hunting arrow. I'm quite sure hunting isn't allowed near that intersection anyways, even if the sun hadn't set five hours prior to the attack.

I believe one of two different scenarios happened:
1) The assailant just happened to see the cop making the arrest, and decided that would be a good time to randomly murder a cop or fire fighter. Or...
2) The assailant knew the guy being arrested, and was thinking he could help his buddy escape.


http://www.detnews.com/2004/oakland/0412/22/C04-39576.htm

"Rochester Hills

Reward offered for information on archer

A reward is being offered for information leading to the person responsible for shooting an arrow at a fire truck Friday night near Avon and Crooks roads. No one was injured in the incident, but a Sheriff's deputy and a firefighter were standing a few feet from the vehicle when an arrow, fired from an unknown direction, struck the truck, broke into pieces and fell to the ground. The deputy was making an arrest of a drunken driver about 10 p.m. when the incident took place. Anyone with information is asked to call -------."

I know bows aren't guns, but they are classified as firearms, just like guns.

No they are not.

From the United States Code:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921 Prev | Next

§ 921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

when he shot an arrow during a concert a few years back?

I saw him shoot a flaming arrow into his guitar at the conclusion of his set in 1977 here in San Diego. He was not arrested. That was the Cat Scratch Fever tour. He was warming up for Yes IIRC.

QUOTE
Chapter 1, Section 8.3t “Firearm” defined.
Sec. 3t.
The word “firearm”, except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas or air.
UNQUOTE

"I know bows aren't guns, but they are classified as firearms, just like guns."

only different. :evilgrin:

There's no legitimate reason for civilians to own something this frightening and deadly!

They seem to have an awful lot of pulleys and strings and random stuff tacked on.

My brother had a bow and some arrows. The bow was just a contoured stick of fibreglass with a handgrip and a single cord.


:shrug:

the pullies are for girly men like Nugent.

My brother did hunt with that bow of his. Hares, mostly. We ate a lot of them.

He tipped his arrows with steel he cut from the casing of some busted appliance: an old iron, or a washing machine, or something. I forget what exactly, but I remember watching him.

It wasn't fancy, but it seemed to work.

They let you hold the bow at full draw a lot longer than you otherwise could. This helps greatly in aiming.

Or something out of a sci fi movie?

Actually, the image of compound bow I was Googling for is more exotic and hi-tech than those ones. I forgot the name of the bow; I saw it on the "History Channel" and the thing was a mind blowing piece of engineering art (not that the ones I posted aren't).

I think I know who the culprit might be :D

And that high-capacity quiver should be banned.

:evilgrin:

;(

... and I don't mean the poor little fella with the tail.

Now, lest anyone forget, here once again is the story of how chickenhawk Ted avoided 'Nam:

According to researchers for Cleveland Amory, an animal rights activist who has debated Ted, Citizen Nugent showed up at the induction board in a state of filth after defecating and urinating in his clothes for several days. Of course, it stands to reason that Ted is a vocal proponent of every US military action since.

http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/


(edited to replace image w/quote and link -- my goof :dunce: )

That's a pretty important question you know. I mean if a guy's gonna be a part of the patriotic civilian militia, then he can't go around shooting at cops can he? Or did he determine that this cop was being tyrannical, and that it was a justifiable homocide attempt?

Sounds like you should call the cops, seems like you have info they might need.

If I was a betting man I would bet cupid did it.

Sounds to me more like a drunken yahoo with a bow and arrow. Or maybe a child who did something really stupid and then ran like hell.

There's not much of a tempest in your teapot, Lefty.

"struck the truck, broke into pieces and fell to the ground." That wouldn't happen with a synthetic or aluminum arrow and probably not with wooden arrows used for hunting. It could have been a child’s toy.

The article didn't say what kind of head the arrow had.

Don’t ban archery in city limits
QUOTE
Dear Editor: If the proposed ban on archery within the {Tuscaloosa, Alabama} City limits is imposed, it will be a sad day for the future of archery and Alabama’s deer population.

The ban will deal a severe blow to the future of archery. Fewer of our youth will be growing up in archery while adults will be leaving the sport. If young and old can’t shoot their bows on their property, most will not develop or maintain an interest in archery.

The ban will damage our deer population and possibly the sport of hunting, in general. We have all heard the adage that “practice makes perfect". Bow hunting requires the hunter to know their equipment and to be very accurate. This ban will have the unintended consequence of more wounded, un-recovered, and inhumanely taken deer, due to the resulting reduction in practice.

What are some of the other unintended consequences? More people moving out of the City and into the County where they are free to shoot a bow? Disregard for the ban by otherwise law-abiding people? Valuable resources spent on enforcement with no real reduction in damages or improvement in safety?

If absolutely necessary, it would be preferable to have reasonable requirements regarding equipment, suitable targets, and backstops, rather than a ban. Archery can be pursued safely and responsibly within the City limits, so it should not be banned. Only the reckless and irresponsible should be penalized, not everyone.
UNQUOTE