Out of control gun control

[Floating Pants]

It's a bit funny how scarce guns are in Europe when you compare that to the U.S. Hell, even campus police carry arms over here. A police force is meant to protect you, and if they are unable to do that, or you doubt that they can, then that's obviously a poor police force.
What is the harm in having them carry firearms anyways? It's not like they're going to shoot you without justification.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Campus cops used to rarely carry guns in the US. I think things started to radically change after Columbine. Before that, universities were naturally leery about giving what are essentially security guards loaded firearms in an area full of young people.

 

[Cutlass]

Wouldn't it be common sense to have a cop armed at all times???

Even cops deserve to be off work from time to time.

 

[Benefactor]

It's a bit funny how scarce guns are in Europe when you compare that to the U.S. Hell, even campus police carry arms over here. A police force is meant to protect you, and if they are unable to do that, or you doubt that they can, then that's obviously a poor police force.
What is the harm in having them carry firearms anyways? It's not like they're going to shoot you without justification.

British police have truncheons, pepper spray, handcuffs and generally numbers...

That's enough, if there is gun crime, then they get the armed police to come out. Simple really.

 

[IglooDame]

Only if he lives in an incredibly dangerous society, which may very well be caused at least to some extent by merely arming all the cops.

“Police Without Guns” – Community Service Officers Come to the Bay Area

Nobody seems to be killing them in the US.

Not much, anyway.

From a US perspective, I see no downside to arming auxiliary police, campus cops, etc as a matter of course, assuming they've shown some level of mandatory proficiency with firearm safety and operation. I don't propose that Norway take that up, though.

I know people that carry very nearly 24/7/365, it is as natural for them as wearing a seatbelt in a car and they tend to regard it the same way, but I also know that some police officers regard their pistol as a job-related tool and wouldn't carry it off-duty any more than they'd carry a flashlight or handcuffs around with them.

 

[Defiant47]

I think people should focus more on the practical and actual effects, rather than the theoretical. "How can you protect your people without guns?" Hey, if it's working!

and wouldn't carry it off-duty any more than they'd carry a flashlight or handcuffs around with them.

I would

 

[IglooDame]

but I also know that some police officers regard their pistol as a job-related tool and wouldn't carry it off-duty any more than they'd carry a flashlight or handcuffs around with them.

I would

Trust me, it's a lot more convenient to leave the cuffs in the truck. You can always use your belt in bondage-related emergencies that won't wait for a quick trip to the parking log.

 

[aelf]

Um, law enforcement procedures for the handling and use of fire arms seems quite a separate issue from gun control at large. It's perfectly possible (and plausible) to have most cops carry firearms and have gun control. But even if Norwegian cops did carry a gun each, it wouldn't have changed a thing in this case. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 - there was no way that off-duty cop would have known beforehand that some heavily-armed guy would shoot at him (the girl who tried to raise the alarm was shot, apparently), so I don't get where you got the idea that he could've sneaked up on the killer; sounds like pure fantasy.

In fact, it seems this case supports the idea of gun control rather than detracts from it, since the killer acquired his guns legally. Unless, of course, you're proposing that Norwegian cops carry machine guns even while off duty and that most youths carry guns to a camp just in case some heavily-armed terrorist turns up.

 

[IglooDame]

Um, law enforcement procedures for the handling and use of fire arms seems quite a separate issue from gun control at large. It's perfectly possible (and plausible) to have most cops carry firearms and have gun control. But even if Norwegian cops did carry a gun each, it wouldn't have changed a thing in this case. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 - there was no way that off-duty cop would have known beforehand that some heavily-armed guy would shoot at him (the girl who tried to raise the alarm was shot, apparently), so I don't get where you got the idea that he could've sneaked up on the killer; sounds like pure fantasy.

In fact, it seems this case supports the idea of gun control rather than detracts from it, since the killer acquired his guns legally. Unless, of course, you're proposing that Norwegian cops carry machine guns even while off duty and that most youths carry guns to a camp just in case some heavily-armed terrorist turns up.

It is impossible to know (without talking to the off-duty cop, at least) whether he might have been able to change things for the better had he been carrying a concealed pistol. All other things being equal, I'd have preferred that he had one to at least try.

 

[RedRalph]

Pretty silly OP. Wouldn't do much for one's cridibility to not even research the basic facts.

 

[aelf]

It is impossible to know (without talking to the off-duty cop, at least) whether he might have been able to change things for the better had he been carrying a concealed pistol. All other things being equal, I'd have preferred that he had one to at least try.

According to the account I've read, it seems he didn't have much of a warning. This guy certainly didn't care if the off-duty cop was carrying a gun or not. He just shot anybody and everybody, with the ones most likely to cause him trouble first.

So given that Norway does not actually have gun control and that the issue of arming the police seems to be beside the point, I struggle to see how this case says anything about either issue.

 

[IglooDame]

According to the account I've read, it seems he didn't have much of a warning. This guy certainly didn't care if the off-duty cop was carrying a gun or not. He just shot anybody and everybody, with the ones most likely to cause him trouble first.

So given that Norway does not actually have gun control and that the issue of arming the police seems to be beside the point, I struggle to see how this case says anything about either issue.

I share your struggle.

 

[kochman]

First... Sorry, again, for not researching this better. I admit, it was sensationalistic.
However, that being said, it is still noteworthy that COPS need permission to have their gun on their body outside of their car. Not many violent crimes are stopped from inside the car, and violent crimes are generally the ones where you may need a gun.
Therefore, despite my poor initial research, the point STILL stands...
So, if you guys want to continue to split hairs about it, fine. Let's talk big picture here... COPS NEED PERMISSION TO CARRY THEIR GUN WHERE THEY MIGHT NEED IT.

Would you rather have to return to your car when facing an armed assailant?
Or reach down to your waist level and grab your gun?
Which would you prefer if a policeman in such a situation???

I find it amazing how you didn't bother to research your OP with even a google search (guns are outright illegal in only a handful of countries, none of which are in Europe). I find it much more amazing that you will repeat falsehoods (all firearms are at the station) when right in this thread it was explained they're in the car.

I didn't read the entire thing, because really, it is moot.

I don't think it's obvious in any way. The off duty cop there was off duty. He didn't have a firearm, or access to one, because he was off duty. Without the ability to see the future, it seems to be really stupid to bring firearms to a youth camp. It'd be like arming boy scout leaders.

Not at all. Police are sworn officers. They don't have to carry their guns in their off time, but most do, in the USA. There are many stories that talk about "an off duty police" stopping a crime... because he was armed.

Pretend for a moment the off duty cop did have a gun. What would have happened? Guy dressed as cop walks up, pulls a rifle from a bag and then kills him anyway.

Well, yes, in that one situation, you'd be dead, no matter what, if you were the first target (because you are uniformed, even that of a security guard, and unarmed, so you become the first target).

Wouldn't it be common sense to have a cop armed at all times???

Most in the USA are... FBI I believe are always supposed to be armed.
If I were in uniform, I would be armed, period. I work in law enforcement and was military before. It is harrowing being a constant potential first target... carrying a gun can save not only the lives of scores of others, but yourself as well.

Wouldn't it be a common sense to stick with things that works?

It worked so well that 70+ people died because it took over an hour for an armed cop to get to the guy? That's not working well. I understand it was on an island, etc... and normal response time would be faster, but the whole asking for permission, when seconds matter, is overly strict... PARTICULARLY in a country where people can regularly own weapons.

British police have truncheons, pepper spray, handcuffs and generally numbers...

That's enough, if there is gun crime, then they get the armed police to come out. Simple really.

When seconds matter...

Um, law enforcement procedures for the handling and use of fire arms seems quite a separate issue from gun control at large. It's perfectly possible (and plausible) to have most cops carry firearms and have gun control. But even if Norwegian cops did carry a gun each, it wouldn't have changed a thing in this case. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 - there was no way that off-duty cop would have known beforehand that some heavily-armed guy would shoot at him (the girl who tried to raise the alarm was shot, apparently), so I don't get where you got the idea that he could've sneaked up on the killer; sounds like pure fantasy.

In fact, it seems this case supports the idea of gun control rather than detracts from it, since the killer acquired his guns legally. Unless, of course, you're proposing that Norwegian cops carry machine guns even while off duty and that most youths carry guns to a camp just in case some heavily-armed terrorist turns up.

The problem here is, we seem to have the tables turned. There is a law on the books that the cops can't just carry at all times... while the people can own at all times.
Your point of a society where cops have guns and people generally can't, it's basically the total opposite of what happened here.

According to the account I've read, it seems he didn't have much of a warning. This guy certainly didn't care if the off-duty cop was carrying a gun or not. He just shot anybody and everybody, with the ones most likely to cause him trouble first.

So given that Norway does not actually have gun control and that the issue of arming the police seems to be beside the point, I struggle to see how this case says anything about either issue.

Well, like I said, uniformed with no gun, easy target, first target. Even if he was in his police uniform, he would have had to go back to his car to then get the gun...
Would you rather have to go back to wherever your car was when faced with an armed assailant?
Or just reach down to the pistol in the holster on your hip???

I know which option I am going with.

 

[JollyRoger]

PARTICULARLY in a country where people can regularly own weapons.

Why do you expect legal gun possession to heighten the risk to law enforcement? That sounds like gun grabber thinking to me.

 

[kochman]

Why do you expect a lack of gun control to heighten the risk to law enforcement? That sounds like gun grabber thinking to me.

Excellent question.
I think LE should always be armed, especially when in uniform, so that is the perspective I am taking it from. To me, it is bizarre to not have weapons when in uniform.

You are right that lack of gun control is not directly linked to increased risk to LE (see Switzerland, and even Norway... this is a rather isolated incident).

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps it seems bizarre, because you live in a more violent culture than Norway.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Allowing more legal guns to stifle crime rates via deterrence seems sound.

However, many people, even many conservatives, are terrified of them and don't want them anywhere nearby. So, the deterrent falls apart; the only private citizen I know who owns a gun is my grandfather, and that makes sense as he's not in his physical prime.

Though, from personal bias, an officer without a gun is odd. Though him having a gun wouldn't necessarily mean the killings would have been stopped.

Also, these were youths. Youths cannot legally carry guns in most jurisdictions. So, even if gun control's only restriction was age, they still wouldn't have had protection apart from the officer.

 

[Paven]

Well, yes, in that one situation, you'd be dead, no matter what, if you were the first target (because you are uniformed, even that of a security guard, and unarmed, so you become the first target).

So having a gun wouldnt help in this instance.

It worked so well that 70+ people died because it took over an hour for an armed cop to get to the guy? That's not working well. I understand it was on an island, etc... and normal response time would be faster, but the whole asking for permission, when seconds matter, is overly strict... PARTICULARLY in a country where people can regularly own weapons.

This was related to transport, im sure they didnt use an hour to get the weapons from the car.

As for civilians carrying guns in public places it has to be justified (say hunting) for it to be allowable. If a (fictional) police squad had searched the killer when he arrived at utøya he would have been apprehended.

Edit :
Rules for for when carrying a hidden weapon is permissable are stricter.

 

[kochman]

Perhaps it seems bizarre, because you live in a more violent culture than Norway.

I've lived in similarly non-violent cultures though, and I would say the same... but yes, I am overprotective and moderately paranoid... and that is certainly partially because of the "American psyche" or what have you.
However, Germans, Italians, Spaniards... they live in relatively non-violent places, and their cops are packing not only pistols, but often submachine guns.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given the history of Germany, Italy, and Spain, I would not condsider them non-violent.