If you don't care, or would rather mourn people elsewhere in the world (you can't find it in your heart to write a few nice words about more than one tragedy?), then don't post at all, go back to your corner of the internet and be happy that when you log onto facebook, you see status updates about parties, and not families searching for their possibly dead children.
Thank you for those who expressed their condolences.|||Quote:
I don't think being armed would stop you from still talking to people at the park or store. It just depends on whether your culture/people are scared of the object or bad people with objects (or neither?).
there is a huge difference between talking to "people" in the park and grocery store and talking to the king and prime minister in the park and grocery store
and anybody suggesting that having more guns available for everyone would have prevented this is an idiot
it didn't stop Columbine
or any of these others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...leducationnews
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201...c_13682614.htm|||Quote:
there is a huge difference between talking to "people" in the park and grocery store and talking to the king and prime minister in the park and grocery store
That's what I was referring to. But I doubt our "King" shops at grocery stores, and not because we have the 2A.
Quote:
and anybody suggesting that having more guns available for everyone would have prevented this is an idiot
it didn't stop Columbine
or any of these others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...leducationnews
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201...c_13682614.htm
Your argument is a bit simplistic and a strawman, but I'll play ball anyway.
Firstly, citing "gun free zones" (ie. schools) doesn't help your case. They are by definition gun-free... from law-abiding citizens. Clearly a rapid, armed, response from local law-abiding citizenry is impossible. If anything, it shows that being shot and killed as a response to an armed shooter is ineffective at stopping said shooter. Go figure. I expect most attackers to target the weak or those incapable of defending themselves either because they do not have the training and mindset necessary or because they do not have the necessary tools at their disposal - not those who are inclined to return fire.
Secondly, there are several school shootings that have been stopped by armed citizens, most notably Pearl and Appalachian Law, or others where armed citizens returned fire and reduced the ability of the threat to kill more innocent people (UT Austin).
Thirdly, no one is arguing that a CCW holder or armed citizen is going to prevent or stop shootings. That is not up to anybody but the shooters themselves. It may reduce the odds, but not eliminate them. All it does is give people a fighting chance should they choose to accept it. Nothing more. There are no guarantees, there are only odds. Personally, I do not find being outgunned and/or outnumbered to be beneficial for me.
Finally, and almost needlessly, I should state being unable to defend yourself and simply being shot or calling 911 is not a terribly effective method of dealing with an armed shooter. Multiple rounds to the center of mass (or head, if necessary) is, however, a PROVEN method for stopping a threat. Why this is not obvious to people is quite frankly, confusing, but I can guarantee you that between dialing a phone and putting rounds on a target, sending those rounds will be FAR more effective at ending the threat than any cell phone conversation you'd have will.|||Seems kind of obvious to me. If somebody were armed on that island and chose to respond, that could have ended it at six casualties instead of ninety. Maybe less. We'll never know for sure.
Its all about response time. Security has three components. Detection, protection, reaction. The police are a reaction and in this case, as it is in most, it was way too long.
At any rate, Norway has my condolences for the loss of life.|||Norway is a country with people who chose not to arm themselves. Of course, having no gun doesn't mean that you cannot be shot by a gun, but on a general scale, I fir myself think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. However, I'm fine with the people of different countries deciding otherwise, like the US. Whatever it is, doing it against the will of the people will do more bad than allowing or disallowing guns will do.
Apart from that, you need more than some guy with a gun to stop a person like that. If he had to reckon with armed people, he would have spied them out and shot them first (or just asked who it is while he pretended to be a kind of policeman). He was prepared, the others weren't, that's why things could go that far.
I agree that the police failed in an almost scandalous fashion. The special forces needed 90 minutes to reach the island and when they were there, they had to search for a boat! Couldn't the regular policemen organize one in the meantime? What about a helicopter? I think that mobility is most important for the security forces of a country with a low population density, but it wasn't in a remote area. 90 minutes, that's inacceptable and hope it will have consequences, just like in Germany after Munich 1972.
BTW, a few tourists risked their lives and saved dozens of the children by going out with a boat. What did the local police do at that time?|||Quote:
Seems kind of obvious to me. If somebody were armed on that island and chose to respond, that could have ended it at six casualties instead of ninety. Maybe less. We'll never know for sure.
Then again, more guns floating around in the populace means more nutcases will own them and pull off more shootings. Thus, the odds increase that someone else could do the shooting of innocents (and for even dumber reasons). I guess you have to compare the national death toll from gun related incidents in places where people can carry guns to places where no one carries them (except police). Maybe the seemingly high number of Norwegian casualties would have to be multiplied by a lot to equal the annual deaths in a gun loving nation. I'm sure there are more factors too, like health care access, poverty, etc.
Imho, there are just far too many mental illnesses out there (which few people even know about). It doesn't matter how "law abiding" a bipolar person is, or someone with clinical depression. Their 'lashing out' day coming, no matter what. Many of those you might think are law abiding gun carrying citizens are ticking time bombs, fine and dandy now, but anything could happen to them.|||Quote:
Apart from that, you need more than some guy with a gun to stop a person like that. If he had to reckon with armed people, he would have spied them out and shot them first
Doubtful. Especially if there are more than one armed individuals around and/or people have their weapons concealed.
Quote:
(or just asked who it is while he pretended to be a kind of policeman)
Big gigantic red flag that the guy's not on the up and up and one of the reasons you don't just fork over all information to any guy with a badge.
Yes, it is their choice whether to arm themselves or not. (Well, in a broad sense since laws limit choice.) All choices have consequences though, and Norway just got hit hard with one of those consequences.
Quote:
He was prepared, the others weren't, that's why things could go that far.
Yes it is.
Quote:
What did the local police do at that time?
I believe someone mentioned they were dealing with an explosion at the time. Sounds to me like it was either coordinated, or an extremely convenient coincidence for the shooter.
Quote:
Then again, more guns floating around in the populace means more nutcases will own them and pull off more shootings. Thus, the odds increase that someone else could do the shooting of innocents (and for even dumber reasons). I guess you have to compare the national death toll from gun related incidents in places where people can carry guns to places where no one carries them (except police). Maybe the seemingly high number of Norwegian casualties would have to be multiplied by a lot to equal the annual deaths in a gun loving nation. I'm sure there are more factors too, like health care access, poverty, etc.
Imho, there are just far too many mental illnesses out there (which few people even know about). It doesn't matter how "law abiding" a bipolar person is, or someone with clinical depression. Their 'lashing out' day coming, no matter what. Many of those you might think are law abiding gun carrying citizens are ticking time bombs, fine and dandy now, but anything could happen to them.
And people call us paranoid.
|||But stats are stats. A handful of the people you see as law abiding citizens who would readily come to the rescue are destined to become disgruntled shooters themselves. It's not about paranoia. That's like saying someone is paranoid about drivers when there are clearly drunk ones out there.|||Yet you don't see anyone banning cars, despite there being a much, much, much, much, much, much, much greater chance of drunk drivers than spontaneous insanity. 
par�a�noi�a
[par-uh-noi-uh] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2.
baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.|||Quote:
Doubtful. Especially if there are more than one armed individuals around and/or people have their weapons concealed.
This is about a holiday camp with children. I don't think that's a good place for having guns on your body. The owner might lose it or it might be stolen and then he will have a really big problem, with a hundred 16 year old children on the island.
I neither feel safer nor am I safer if I live in a place where I have to reckon with people with hidden guns all around me. I guess that in such a place, most people have their guns because of the others having a gun as well, in particular because of that quota of 10% which I will just call "problematic".
Quote:
Big gigantic red flag that the guy's not on the up and up and one of the reasons you don't just fork over all information to any guy with a badge.
With a bit of talent, you can talk people into doing a lot of things if you wear an uniform, have a gun and wave around with your fishing license. And if that fails, you can still point a gun at a child and demand that all weapons are handed out. Most people will do that instead of taking a gamble and trying to shoot him by surprise and they won't expect what you are intending to do.
How could the 9/11 attacks be made by a few guys with utility knives? The world isn't like in Bruce Willis movies.
Quote:
Yes, it is their choice whether to arm themselves or not. (Well, in a broad sense since laws limit choice.) All choices have consequences though, and Norway just got hit hard with one of those consequences.
That's right.
Quote:
Yes it is.
Including unprepared people with guns.
Quote:
I believe someone mentioned they were dealing with an explosion at the time. Sounds to me like it was either coordinated, or an extremely convenient coincidence for the shooter.
I'm not sure if you meant this ironically or if you aren't informed that well. That guy laid a pretty big bomb in Oslo which killed a few people and caused a lot of damage, then he drove to the holiday island.
No comments:
Post a Comment