Saw Stop would have prevented this

Page 4 of 10  
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

----------------------------------------------------------

Not likely applicable as visual contact with the suspect must be maintained throughout the chase for that to apply in the use of force... Since they had no idea where the suspect was it would be hard to argue that it was a legal search without the consent of the residents. That said, apparently most of the people were grateful to be searched... I guess fear of the suspects and the intimidation of having heavily armed police at your door has an influence on ones decisions!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>The mass warrantless searches

---------------------------------------------------------- "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------- "John Grossbohlin" wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------- "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Since it turns out they had him surrounded from the gitgo, could probably make a very good "hot pursuit" case with a judge.
What ever way you want to cut it, a lot of folks in greater Boston are relived tonight.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

That is for sure! A better outcome than anticipated... especially considering that between the two shooting sessions apparently 300+ rounds were discharged. Reports claimed 200 in the first one and another estimated 100 in the second one. Goes to show what stress and fatigue can do to one's fine motor skills!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or, as Boudreaux sez: "Lead in the air, meat in the pot."
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

This is untrue.
There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).
Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined intent".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit? Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars? Why don't we ban cars?
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by guns than by ball bats and hammers.
Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011: homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101 homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852 suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766 accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that) discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222
total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined -- 31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677 accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons, anyway. Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most are with handguns AFAIK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Most so-called "assault" weapons are only semiautomatics and are not really assault weapons at all. How does that affect your .6%?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/19/13 4:44 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

I'm sure it doesn't. That's why I always put "assault' in quotation marks whenever I debate this topic. Because there are no legal assault weapons readily, legally, available to the public in the US.
I'm quite certain that statistic includes only weapon that are cosmetically "military-style" or come with a swappable magazine.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

And you're full of crap. As I said before you attempted to twist it into something else, Guns have mostly one use, and that's for shooting people OR animals. Does that qualify it for you???
Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote in

What did I say here that's untrue? Is it your contention that *fewer* people are killed by guns than by ball bats and hammers?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote in

Off your meds again, Dave?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

Instead of playing your usual bullshit red herring card, try replying with a logical comparison of the value to society between guns ard cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in writes:

In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution, whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't have granted privilege anyway.
IF you're going to compare the two with your bullshit logic, then ask yourself if your courts would have created the second amendment when cars were as much a fact of life as guns were.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/21/2013 12:37 PM, snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

The courts had nothing to do with creating the Constitution.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:47:04 -0700, Doug Winterburn

Courts, men, government, it's people who were in power and that makes it all pretty much the same thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.