You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

I wonder if he's the owner of the local glass company...

=================================================

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS03/712099997

Man runs wild with hammer at mall
Published Dec 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm (Updated Dec 8, 2011)

NEWINGTON NH — Mayhem erupted when a man ran through the Fox Run Mall
Thursday, smashing display cases and glass storefronts with a hammer as
he babbled incoherently, police and witnesses said.

Only one person was injured by falling glass, but witnesses described a
chaotic scene in which some people feared a gunman was on the loose.
Michael Williams, 34, of Dover, was arrested without incident inside the
mall for felony criminal mischief.

The ruckus began at Kay Jewelers around 4:45 p.m., when the man smashed
several display cases, none of which broke because they are safety
glass. He then sprinted to nearby jewelry store Pandora, where he
succeeded in bashing in numerous display cases as employees screamed and
huddled in a back room, said Peter Gerges, who works at a nearby kiosk
and watched the scene unfold.

The man even told Pandora’s employees not to worry, Gerges said. “He’s
like, ‘Don’t panic ladies, I’m not gonna hurt no one,’” Gerges said. As
the smashing began, some people panicked, said Matt Pilar, who works at
the shoe store Journeys. “There were people down there that were
screaming and dropping down because they thought it was gunfire,” he
said.

Joe Allen, an employee at the T-Mobile kiosk next to Kay, said he and
several others chased the man as he smashed display cases at Zales
before he ran through the mall and slipped in front of Pretzel Time.
Allen said he and three others surrounded the man as he got up from the
spill and reacted wildly.

“He’s just swinging it around,” Allen said of the hammer.

The man then walked over and smashed windows at Sleep Number, Yankee
Candle, Motherhood Maternity and The Limited before sitting down on a
bench outside Victoria’s Secret and tossing the claw hammer aside, Allen
said.

“He said, ‘You can call me God,’” Allen said of the man.

Fire Chief Dale Sylvia said all seven stores affected have been shut
down for safety reasons and won’t be allowed to reopen until they’ve
been inspected. Glass was strewn everywhere at The Limited and
Motherhood Maternity, where storefronts were obliterated.

Allen said the man was speaking incoherently. He and others tried
unsuccessfully to calm him, he said. “Honestly, I got more scared when
he threw the hammer down and sat down,” Allen said. “I was nervous he
had a gun.”

Newington police Sgt. Tim Stuart said Williams was “cooperative and
polite” as he was arrested. “The gentleman obviously has some issues,”
Stuart said. Allen said that when police arrived, the man told them
everything that just happened. “The cops showed up and he told them
exactly what he did,” Allen said.

“He was just nuts; it’s this time of year, I think.”

On 12/11/2011 12:16 PM, Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

I wonder if he's the owner of the local glass company...

=================================================

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS03/712099997

Man runs wild with hammer at mall
Published Dec 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm (Updated Dec 8, 2011)

NEWINGTON NH — Mayhem erupted when a man ran through the Fox Run Mall
Thursday, smashing display cases and glass storefronts with a hammer as
he babbled incoherently, police and witnesses said.

Only one person was injured by falling glass, but witnesses described a
chaotic scene in which some people feared a gunman was on the loose.
Michael Williams, 34, of Dover, was arrested without incident inside the
mall for felony criminal mischief.

The ruckus began at Kay Jewelers around 4:45 p.m., when the man smashed
several display cases, none of which broke because they are safety
glass. He then sprinted to nearby jewelry store Pandora, where he
succeeded in bashing in numerous display cases as employees screamed and
huddled in a back room, said Peter Gerges, who works at a nearby kiosk
and watched the scene unfold.

The man even told Pandora’s employees not to worry, Gerges said. “He’s
like, ‘Don’t panic ladies, I’m not gonna hurt no one,’” Gerges said. As
the smashing began, some people panicked, said Matt Pilar, who works at
the shoe store Journeys. “There were people down there that were
screaming and dropping down because they thought it was gunfire,” he
said.

Joe Allen, an employee at the T-Mobile kiosk next to Kay, said he and
several others chased the man as he smashed display cases at Zales
before he ran through the mall and slipped in front of Pretzel Time.
Allen said he and three others surrounded the man as he got up from the
spill and reacted wildly.

“He’s just swinging it around,” Allen said of the hammer.

The man then walked over and smashed windows at Sleep Number, Yankee
Candle, Motherhood Maternity and The Limited before sitting down on a
bench outside Victoria’s Secret and tossing the claw hammer aside, Allen
said.

“He said, ‘You can call me God,’” Allen said of the man.

Fire Chief Dale Sylvia said all seven stores affected have been shut
down for safety reasons and won’t be allowed to reopen until they’ve
been inspected. Glass was strewn everywhere at The Limited and
Motherhood Maternity, where storefronts were obliterated.

Allen said the man was speaking incoherently. He and others tried
unsuccessfully to calm him, he said. “Honestly, I got more scared when
he threw the hammer down and sat down,” Allen said. “I was nervous he
had a gun.”

Newington police Sgt. Tim Stuart said Williams was “cooperative and
polite” as he was arrested. “The gentleman obviously has some issues,”
Stuart said. Allen said that when police arrived, the man told them
everything that just happened. “The cops showed up and he told them
exactly what he did,” Allen said.

“He was just nuts; it’s this time of year, I think.”

Probably just some poor construction worker that went berserk over all
the silly building laws they have in New England.

Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.


And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would have
been considerably less mayhem.

HeyBub wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.


And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would have
been considerably less mayhem.

I'm sure some of them did, didn't panic and determined that a guy
smashing windows with a hammer didn't pose a threat to them.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:16:54 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

What is dangerous is the city could make a 3-day "cooling off" period
before you can posses a hammer.

This guy obviously wanted to return to jail / confinement for
Christmas dinner.

Everybody knows you don't need a gun to break glass.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:22:00 -0500, Frank
wrote:

Probably just some poor construction worker that went berserk over all
the silly building laws they have in New England.

In my town you cannot even pawn construction tools now. Pawn Stars
won't take them because the can't sell them to anyone. The builders
are moving back to home states, closing down.

Hammers are good for breaking glass :-\

On 12/11/2011 11:52 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.


And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would have
been considerably less mayhem.


Oh yeah, gun shots would have really calmed people down....NOT!

Don

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:34:11 -0600, IGot2P wrote:

On 12/11/2011 11:52 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.


And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would have
been considerably less mayhem.


Oh yeah, gun shots would have really calmed people down....NOT!

Don



Some shoppers thought the commotion was gun shots. Some are said to
have moved towards the disturbances ( run to the sound thought to be
gun fire).

Had this scrout had a gun and a shopper had a gun, we can change the
subject to jingle bells.

Now back too hammers.

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


HeyBub wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a
gun.

nonsense;A Japanese guy went amok with a SWORD and killed several people.
a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.
A guy in California used his Cadillac to run over several schoolchildren.



And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

I'm sure some of them did, didn't panic and determined that a guy
smashing windows with a hammer didn't pose a threat to them.


Yet didn't even try to stop him?

New Hampshire?
doubtful that other people around were armed,lawfully or otherwise.
NH is mostly liberals.(escapees from Mass.)

BTW,there's been several incidents where people with hammers attacked and
robbed jewelry stores,smash and grab.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Dec 11, 5:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would have
been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

On Dec 11, 5:16*pm, Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

I wonder if he's the owner of the local glass company...

=================================================

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS03/712099997

Man runs wild with hammer at mall
Published Dec 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm (Updated Dec 8, 2011)

NEWINGTON NH — Mayhem erupted when a man ran through the Fox Run Mall
Thursday, smashing display cases and glass storefronts with a hammer as
he babbled incoherently, police and witnesses said.

Only one person was injured by falling glass, but witnesses described a
chaotic scene in which some people feared a gunman was on the loose.
Michael Williams, 34, of Dover, was arrested without incident inside the
mall for felony criminal mischief.

The ruckus began at Kay Jewelers around 4:45 p.m., when the man smashed
several display cases, none of which broke because they are safety
glass. He then sprinted to nearby jewelry store Pandora, where he
succeeded in bashing in numerous display cases as employees screamed and
huddled in a back room, said Peter Gerges, who works at a nearby kiosk
and watched the scene unfold.

The man even told Pandora’s employees not to worry, Gerges said. *“He’s
like, ‘Don’t panic ladies, I’m not gonna hurt no one,’” Gerges said. *As
the smashing began, some people panicked, said Matt Pilar, who works at
the shoe store Journeys. *“There were people down there that were
screaming and dropping down because they thought it was gunfire,” he
said.

Joe Allen, an employee at the T-Mobile kiosk next to Kay, said he and
several others chased the man as he smashed display cases at Zales
before he ran through the mall and slipped in front of Pretzel Time.
Allen said he and three others surrounded the man as he got up from the
spill and reacted wildly.

“He’s just swinging it around,” Allen said of the hammer.

The man then walked over and smashed windows at Sleep Number, Yankee
Candle, Motherhood Maternity and The Limited before sitting down on a
bench outside Victoria’s Secret and tossing the claw hammer aside, Allen
said.

“He said, ‘You can call me God,’” Allen said of the man.

Fire Chief Dale Sylvia said all seven stores affected have been shut
down for safety reasons and won’t be allowed to reopen until they’ve
been inspected. Glass was strewn everywhere at The Limited and
Motherhood Maternity, where storefronts were obliterated.

Allen said the man was speaking incoherently. He and others tried
unsuccessfully to calm him, he said. *“Honestly, I got more scared when
he threw the hammer down and sat down,” Allen said. “I was nervous he
had a gun.”

Newington police Sgt. Tim Stuart said Williams was “cooperative and
polite” as he was arrested. *“The gentleman obviously has some issues,”
Stuart said. *Allen said that when police arrived, the man told them
everything that just happened. *“The cops showed up and he told them
exactly what he did,” Allen said.

“He was just nuts; it’s this time of year, I think.”

If you want to break some glass it should be worth while.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdYvbG_PsgY

harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Nope. Never has happened.

COPS shoot a great number of innocent bystanders, but ordinary civilians? It
just doesn't happen.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there would
have
been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Poor harry
More stupid ignorant beliefs
In the US, armed citizens shoot more than 2 times as many criminals as the
police
And yet it is the police that shoot nearly 6 times as many innocent
bystanders as armed citizens

Maybe YOU should stop trying to educate yourself "Hollywood" style...
snicker

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Nope. Never has happened.

COPS shoot a great number of innocent bystanders, but ordinary civilians?
It just doesn't happen.


The ratio is almost 6:1 of cops vs civilians shooting innocent bystanders
And that's with civilians shooting more than TWICE as man criminals as the
police

On Dec 11, 7:13*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

On Dec 12, 3:23*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:

a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

You seem to be expert in this matter.
Is this a commom accurance where you live?
If so, is it something in the water?

Or is that just a theoretical concept in your brain?

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:57:56 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Poor harry
More stupid ignorant beliefs
In the US, armed citizens shoot more than 2 times as many criminals as the
police
And yet it is the police that shoot nearly 6 times as many innocent
bystanders as armed citizens

Cite?

Jim

On 12/12/2011 9:31 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:23 pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim wrote:

a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

You seem to be expert in this matter.
Is this a commom accurance where you live?
If so, is it something in the water?

Or is that just a theoretical concept in your brain?

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Darn Harry! I would think you may have been to a football game at one
time in your life. Over here we don't usually have soccer riots but
there are time when football fans go bonkers. ^_^

I thought the news was full of students running amok over government
cuts a while back over there in The U.K.?

TDD

On 12/12/2011 8:57 AM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have
been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Poor harry
More stupid ignorant beliefs
In the US, armed citizens shoot more than 2 times as many criminals as
the police
And yet it is the police that shoot nearly 6 times as many innocent
bystanders as armed citizens

Maybe YOU should stop trying to educate yourself "Hollywood" style...
snicker


Heck, police are bad about killing innocent people by mistake all the
time, even children.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3gtoa6e

TDD

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could
hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.


Why not ?
It's it's YOUR property, that you spent a whole bunch of time building up,
you have EVERY RIGHT to use force to stop someone from destroying it.

Also how do you know that after doing physical damage to things, he would
not start trying to do it to people

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that hammer


The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

NAH
Why should "a few guys" take the risk of tackling someone swinging a hammer
?
Far safer to the innocents to just shoot the ****er until he stops being a
danger to others

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 3:23 pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:

a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could
hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

You seem to be expert in this matter.
Is this a commom accurance where you live?
If so, is it something in the water?

Or is that just a theoretical concept in your brain?

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Just because YOU have "never seen someone running amok in the UK.", does NOT
mean that it doesn't happen.
Title says it all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnAkZblRJQg
"London Riots: Rioters Run Amok As Unrest Spreads In England"

But thanks for proving what an ignorant idiot you are.

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:57:56 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Poor harry
More stupid ignorant beliefs
In the US, armed citizens shoot more than 2 times as many criminals as the
police
And yet it is the police that shoot nearly 6 times as many innocent
bystanders as armed citizens

Cite?


start here
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6.0-screen.pdf
Page 28 "Myth: Only police should have guns"
Then here
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
Then here
http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
Read the section
"Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"
More here
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

On Dec 12, 12:11*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message
The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

Why not ?
It's it's YOUR property, that you spent a whole bunch of time building up,
you have EVERY RIGHT to use force to stop someone from destroying it.

Not if you are a true and proper Christian and believe that no amount
of property is worth a person's life, even a chemically imbalanced
hammer-swinging nutcase.

Also how do you know that after doing physical damage to things, he would
not start trying to do it to people

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that hammer

That's not the way the police, the prosecutors, and the lawyers for
the nutcase's family will see it. They will argue that he was neither
threatening nor attacking any person, and therefore the use of deadly
force was unnecessary and excessive. You would go to jail for several
years, and spend the rest of your life working to pay off the civil
suit.

Why should "a few guys" take the risk of tackling someone swinging a hammer
?
Far safer to the innocents to just shoot the ****er until he stops being a
danger to others

You get a few guys together, corner him, hook/whack his hammer hand
with a broom or mop to distract/disarm, then jump him and kick his
ass. Throw a frickin' chair, ladder, flower pot, or sign at him.

Yeah, society would probably be better off without him. Odds are he'll
go off his schitzo meds again in the future and go on another wacky
rampage. He's not willing to help himself, so he is beyond help.
Regardless, it's not a "kill or be killed" situation unless he
actually tries to kill someone.

Hell, where was Paul Blart Mall Cop with his tazer?

On Dec 12, 10:31*am, harry wrote:
I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Don't get out much, do you? This just happened:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ng-sacked.html

They even use the words "run amok" right in the article.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 12:11 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message
The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

Why not ?
It's it's YOUR property, that you spent a whole bunch of time building
up,
you have EVERY RIGHT to use force to stop someone from destroying it.

Not if you are a true and proper Christian and believe that no amount
of property is worth a person's life, even a chemically imbalanced
hammer-swinging nutcase.


Feel free to define the basis, with supporting references naturally, where a
"true and proper Christian believes that no amount of property is worth a
person's life"
Take as many screens as you need to support your case


Also how do you know that after doing physical damage to things, he would
not start trying to do it to people

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that
hammer

That's not the way the police, the prosecutors, and the lawyers for
the nutcase's family will see it.

Which goes to show what happens when an ignoramus claims to speak for the
police, prosecutors, or anyone else for that matter.


They will argue that he was neither
threatening nor attacking any person, and therefore the use of deadly
force was unnecessary and excessive. You would go to jail for several
years, and spend the rest of your life working to pay off the civil
suit.


They can argue al they want
But the laws on self-defense and the use of deadly force don't really care
what people who were not there will argue.
As to your conclusion, since it's based on ignorance and prejudice, it's
worth just about nothing. Maybe at best a bubble of swamp gas.




Why should "a few guys" take the risk of tackling someone swinging a
hammer
?
Far safer to the innocents to just shoot the ****er until he stops being
a
danger to others

You get a few guys together, corner him, hook/whack his hammer hand
with a broom or mop to distract/disarm, then jump him and kick his
ass. Throw a frickin' chair, ladder, flower pot, or sign at him.


See your claim about about what the police, prosecutor or his family would
say (according to you) for doing so

If you're going to throw dangerous stuff at the poor nut, you should at
least have the brains to throw something that will actually and not
theoretical or optimistically, stop him


Yeah, society would probably be better off without him. Odds are he'll
go off his schitzo meds again in the future and go on another wacky
rampage. He's not willing to help himself, so he is beyond help.
Regardless, it's not a "kill or be killed" situation unless he
actually tries to kill someone.


NOPE
The law does NOT require one to be a mind-reader to decide on the use of
deadly force
All you need to fear is a risk of serious injury or death resulting from his
behavior, to you or others at risk from his behavior.


Hell, where was Paul Blart Mall Cop with his tazer?

Who know, who cares.
If you're there and the mall cop isn't, then the decision falls on you.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:00:31 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Nope. Never has happened.

COPS shoot a great number of innocent bystanders, but ordinary civilians? It
just doesn't happen.


Decent, reasonable and prudent armed citizens do not fire, except to
defend life, liberty and the pursuit of (coochie) rolling in the hay.

"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:00:31 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Nope. Never has happened.

COPS shoot a great number of innocent bystanders, but ordinary civilians?
It
just doesn't happen.


Decent, reasonable and prudent armed citizens do not fire, except to
defend life, liberty and the pursuit of (coochie) rolling in the hay.

Cops shoot almost 6 times more innocent bystanders than civilians even
though civilians shoot more than double the number of criminals that cops do

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:11:55 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that hammer

Exactly. The reason we have tool control in prisons and asylums.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:30:09 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:00:31 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
You see?

Even crazy people are far less dangerous when they don't have a gun.

And if any of the "sane" people in the mall had had a gun, there
would have been considerably less mayhem.

More likely a few bystanders would have been shot by would be Dirty
Harry imitators.

Nope. Never has happened.

COPS shoot a great number of innocent bystanders, but ordinary civilians?
It
just doesn't happen.


Decent, reasonable and prudent armed citizens do not fire, except to
defend life, liberty and the pursuit of (coochie) rolling in the hay.

Cops shoot almost 6 times more innocent bystanders than civilians even
though civilians shoot more than double the number of criminals that cops do


_Gun Control Research-Wright and Rossi-armed citizens deter criminals_
http://defmech.blogivists.com/2009/01/29/gun-control-research-wright-and-rossi-armed-citizens-deter-criminals/

"...Based on this government-funded research by Wright and Rossi, it
would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime."

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:35:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 12, 12:11*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message
The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

Why not ?
It's it's YOUR property, that you spent a whole bunch of time building up,
you have EVERY RIGHT to use force to stop someone from destroying it.

Not if you are a true and proper Christian and believe that no amount
of property is worth a person's life, even a chemically imbalanced
hammer-swinging nutcase.

"Proper Christian" has nothing to do with it. The fact that someone is
indiscriminately swinging a deadly weapon is reason enough to shoot the
*******. Waiting until he kills someone is certainly not smart.

Also how do you know that after doing physical damage to things, he would
not start trying to do it to people

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that hammer

That's not the way the police, the prosecutors, and the lawyers for
the nutcase's family will see it. They will argue that he was neither
threatening nor attacking any person, and therefore the use of deadly
force was unnecessary and excessive. You would go to jail for several
years, and spend the rest of your life working to pay off the civil
suit.

That depends entirely upon the jurisdiction. In many, there wouldn't even be
any eyebrows raised. No innocents got hurt. Good enough.

Why should "a few guys" take the risk of tackling someone swinging a hammer
?
Far safer to the innocents to just shoot the ****er until he stops being a
danger to others

You get a few guys together, corner him, hook/whack his hammer hand
with a broom or mop to distract/disarm, then jump him and kick his
ass. Throw a frickin' chair, ladder, flower pot, or sign at him.

Nonsense. There is no reason to have volunteer victims.

Yeah, society would probably be better off without him. Odds are he'll
go off his schitzo meds again in the future and go on another wacky
rampage. He's not willing to help himself, so he is beyond help.
Regardless, it's not a "kill or be killed" situation unless he
actually tries to kill someone.

Bull****.

Hell, where was Paul Blart Mall Cop with his tazer?

Mall cop; your solution, obviously.

Blart had the day off. Him and the girl were zipping around San Francisco on
a Segway. Had to stop every half mile and get something to eat.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...


Hell, where was Paul Blart Mall Cop with his tazer?

On 12/12/2011 10:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


"Proper Christian" has nothing to do with it. The fact that someone is
indiscriminately swinging a deadly weapon is reason enough to shoot the
*******. Waiting until he kills someone is certainly not smart.


What if it was a close family member of yours and they had an unknown
brain tumor that unexpectedly started causing them to behave this way?

As long as your ******* relative isn't harming another human, do you
still want someone to "shoot the *******" when maybe they could be
subdued with a Taser?

On Dec 12, 4:25*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/12/2011 9:31 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 12, 3:23 pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim *wrote:

a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

You seem to be expert in this matter.
Is this a commom accurance where you live?
If so, is it something in the water?

Or is that just a theoretical concept in your brain?

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Darn Harry! I would think you may have been to a football game at one
time in your life. Over here we don't usually have soccer riots but
there are time when football fans go bonkers. ^_^

I thought the news was full of students running amok over government
cuts a while back over there in The U.K.?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never been to a football match in my life (or indeed spectated
at any sport.) I can't think of anything more boring. I don't mind
participating in sports that don't involve a ball.
Not with claw hammers and not seen by me except on TV.

I was interested in how various inviduals said they would deal with
the incident. It was obvious that they were in some sort of dream
world where they where the great hero (As depicted in Hollywood films)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1H1vj6zYM

On Dec 12, 9:40*pm, wrote:
On Dec 12, 10:31*am, harry wrote:

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Don't get out much, do you? This just happened:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lton-Mowbray-P...

They even use the words "run amok" right in the article.

I can see now your comprehension skills are low. Go back and read
what I said.
So, how many people have you seen run amok?
And how did you respond to the situation?

How many people have you seen shot?
How many gunfights?
Didyou get your six-shooter out and kill the obviously guilty person
(in your mind) with a single shot?
And then blow the smoke away before returning you trusty weapon to
it's
holster.
Heh Heh.

On Dec 12, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:11*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

wrote in message
The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

Why not ?
It's it's YOUR property, that you spent a whole bunch of time building up,
you have EVERY RIGHT to use force to stop someone from destroying it.

Not if you are a true and proper Christian and believe that no amount
of property is worth a person's life, even a chemically imbalanced
hammer-swinging nutcase.

Also how do you know that after doing physical damage to things, he would
not start trying to do it to people

That guy was a threat to bystanders as long as he was swinging that hammer

That's not the way the police, the prosecutors, and the lawyers for
the nutcase's family will see it. They will argue that he was neither
threatening nor attacking any person, and therefore the use of deadly
force was unnecessary and excessive. You would go to jail for several
years, and spend the rest of your life working to pay off the civil
suit.

Why should "a few guys" take the risk of tackling someone swinging a hammer
?
Far safer to the innocents to just shoot the ****er until he stops being a
danger to others

You get a few guys together, corner him, hook/whack his hammer hand
with a broom or mop to distract/disarm, then jump him and kick his
ass. Throw a frickin' chair, ladder, flower pot, or sign at him.

Yeah, society would probably be better off without him. Odds are he'll
go off his schitzo meds again in the future and go on another wacky
rampage. He's not willing to help himself, so he is beyond help.
Regardless, it's not a "kill or be killed" situation unless he
actually tries to kill someone.

Hell, where was Paul Blart Mall Cop with his tazer?

Clearly a Clit Eastwood fan.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 4:25 pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/12/2011 9:31 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 12, 3:23 pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim wrote:

a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy could
hurt
a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

You seem to be expert in this matter.
Is this a commom accurance where you live?
If so, is it something in the water?

Or is that just a theoretical concept in your brain?

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Darn Harry! I would think you may have been to a football game at one
time in your life. Over here we don't usually have soccer riots but
there are time when football fans go bonkers. ^_^

I thought the news was full of students running amok over government
cuts a while back over there in The U.K.?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never been to a football match in my life (or indeed spectated
at any sport.) I can't think of anything more boring. I don't mind
participating in sports that don't involve a ball.
Not with claw hammers and not seen by me except on TV.

I was interested in how various inviduals said they would deal with
the incident. It was obvious that they were in some sort of dream
world where they where the great hero (As depicted in Hollywood films)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1H1vj6zYM

I don't know why, but the more you post the more you make me think of the
Peter Sellers character "Chance"
Since you're so up on Hollywood, you should have no problem with the
reference.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, wrote:
On Dec 12, 10:31 am, harry wrote:

I have never seen someone running amok in the UK.

Don't get out much, do you? This just happened:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lton-Mowbray-P...

They even use the words "run amok" right in the article.

I can see now your comprehension skills are low. Go back and read
what I said.
So, how many people have you seen run amok?
And how did you respond to the situation?


4 if I don't count the time I was a voluntee firefighter
More than 100 if I do
In all cases I did respond to help someone else



How many people have you seen shot?
How many gunfights?
Didyou get your six-shooter out and kill the obviously guilty person
(in your mind) with a single shot?
And then blow the smoke away before returning you trusty weapon to
it's holster.
Heh Heh.

Yes definitely like "Chance" in "Being There".
All 2nd hand knowledge and no life experience at all..

wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:13 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
a single hammer strike to the skull can kill a person,and a guy
could hurt a lot of people with one. especially if they used a claw
hammer.

The key here is he was NOT hurting people. I don't care what side of
the gun argument you come from, you cannot possibly justify the use of
deadly force if he all he is doing is destroying property.

The second he takes a swing at the perfume girl, you drop him. Until
that time, you either let him continue on his rampage, or get a few
guys together and gang tackle him.

That's certainly one view, commonly held by pacifists and liberals.
Alternatively, in more enlightened climes we have:

Texas Penal Code - 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he believes the deadly force is immediately
necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during
the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from
escaping with the property...

Woody wrote:
On 12/12/2011 10:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


"Proper Christian" has nothing to do with it. The fact that someone
is indiscriminately swinging a deadly weapon is reason enough to
shoot the *******. Waiting until he kills someone is certainly not
smart.

What if it was a close family member of yours and they had an unknown
brain tumor that unexpectedly started causing them to behave this way?

A. Basing general tactics on particular cases is poor logic.
B. Charles Whitman had a brain tumor. Poor fellow still killed a lot of
people. A brain tumor - or a bad trip - does not excuse the conduct.


As long as your ******* relative isn't harming another human, do you
still want someone to "shoot the *******" when maybe they could be
subdued with a Taser?

Maybe he could have been subdued with a net, a conversation about Jesus, a
water cannon, an attack dog, or any of a dozen other alternatives. But a gun
is what I've got.

Not to worry your empathic head, though. I'll shoot the hammer right out of
his hand! Might sting a little.

Attila.Iskander wrote:

Decent, reasonable and prudent armed citizens do not fire, except to
defend life, liberty and the pursuit of (coochie) rolling in the
hay.

Cops shoot almost 6 times more innocent bystanders than civilians even
though civilians shoot more than double the number of criminals that
cops do

That's because the civilians on the scene KNOW who the bad guys are.

Cops, arriving after the mayhem is long underway, harken to the advice of
Pope Leo I: "Kill them all. God will know his own."