Out of control gun control

[Midgard Eagle]

This is a really pathetic way of saying "If only they had guns, they could have stopped the killings!".

Which is in turn such a bizarre and dangerous way of thinking I'm very, very glad it's mostly restricted to the US.

Yes, let's have teens carry guns around, with all the deaths that would cause every year from accidents and hormone-induced murders, just because there's a microscopic chance some dingbat might try to kill you. In the country with the world's lowest homicide rate.

Let's make teens carry fire extinguishers around at all times. Will save far more lives, and it won't kill people, either.

Chances are, he would have been outgunned anyhow, as he would likely have had a pistol... and the lunatic apparently had military grade weaponry (how did that happen in a country where guns are illegal? did criminals supply him with the guns, illegally?!?!)

Researc first, post second.

"I'm sorry, I understand there is an armed maniac killing dozens of people, but I still need you to fill out this form in triplicate and have the Prime Minister initial here, here and here before I can give you your pistol".

You may not want to post such ridiculous things if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Formaldehyde]

When I was in London, I saw unarmed bobbies on patrol at Victoria Station.

When I took the train to Paris, I saw machine-gun toting gendarmes guarding Gare du Nord.

At least the US hasn't gone that far yet...

 

[kochman]

So having a gun wouldnt help in this instance.

I don't know, I wasn't there. It wouldn't have HURT, and it could have helped.
Better to have, than not to have.

Generally speaking, when uniformed, you will be the first target...
I'd rather be with gun in situation.
You?

 

[kochman]

You may not want to post such ridiculous things if you want to be taken seriously.

Since it was a joke using clear exaggeration, I'm thinking you missed the point.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

I'd rather be with gun in situation.
You?

Already answered this.

Given a choice of an armed population, with the countless totally needless deaths this would inevitably entail from accidents and murders, and our current peaceful society with only once-in-a-blue-moon spree killings and the planet's lowest homicide rate... I know what I would go for. Any day.

If there were actually a real threat of being attacked, I could see myself loosening the straps. On Svalbard, an island territory north of Norway, the polar bear threat outside the villages is significant enough that every resident received a mandatory rifle shooting course. But mainland Norway? You probably have a greater chance of being killed by an airplane.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Kochman, maybe a good idea to edit the OP?

edit: Title. I meant title.

 

[aelf]

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.

That's not the point. The point is whether cops carry guns or not isn't really an issue of gun control at large, so trying to draw conclusions about gun control at large from this incident is not going to work.

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.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't have been carrying a gun if he had a mind to do so. He was off-duty and gun ownership is allowed in Norway for citizens. So, again, I don't see what this incident has to do with the issue of gun control or law enforcement procedures. At most you can only conclude that people should own guns and carry them all the time, but that's not really worthy of debate because it's up to individuals to decide.

 

[otago]

We are much like Norway with a lot of rifles available in rural areas.
Put it down to the sod targeting kids on an Island who had no idea, if it was say a company of troops having a picnic with their families the blokes would have rushed him.
Better to lose ten than seventy.

Police and backup, we had some damn students causing trouble with only one copper, but the students did not expect to run into big hairy firefighters.

 

[SuperJay]

That is not "at their own discretion".
Get with the program.

Drop the condescension and actually read up on the subject before you continue insulting the people who did more research in 5 minutes than you did before starting this thread.

EDIT: Just caught up. Glad to see you apologized for the incorrect information and the lack of research, but you're still trying to make this into a gun control issue when it has nothing to do with "gun control." As many people have pointed out, gun ownership by private citizens is legal in Norway. Maybe your problem is with the policies of the law enforcement organizations in Norway, but something tells me they're more familiar with their jobs than you are with their jobs.

 

[Akka]

When I was in London, I saw unarmed bobbies on patrol at Victoria Station.

When I took the train to Paris, I saw machine-gun toting gendarmes guarding Gare du Nord.

At least the US hasn't gone that far yet...

I never saw any gendarme with a machineguns.
I'm pretty sure you saw military patrols (we have them in the high-traffic area, like train stations or airports, when the threat level for terrorism is considered substancial - "plan vigie-pirate").

(and yes, gendarmes are technically military too, but they are normally the law enforcement branch of it)

 

[warpus]

I never saw any gendarme with a machineguns.
I'm pretty sure you saw military patrols (we have them in the high-traffic area, like train stations or airports, when the threat level for terrorism is considered substancial - "plan vigie-pirate").

(and yes, gendarmes are technically military too, but they are normally the law enforcement branch of it)

Maybe he saw the German occupation force

edit: sorry, Muslim occupation force

 

[Algeroth]

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.

Well, AFAIK the main reason behind the delay was that the police didn't have anyone that would be able to fly a chopper at that very moment. Yes, this was a grave mistake on their part but it have nothing to do with both Norwegian gun control and whether norway police is armed or not.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Realistically, the odds of needing one based on past experience was probably so low as to not even be a consideration. this came out of nowhere.

 

[SuperJay]

Well, AFAIK the main reason behind the delay was that the police didn't have anyone that would be able to fly a chopper at that very moment. Yes, this was a grave mistake on their part but it have nothing to do with both Norwegian gun control and whether norway police is armed or not.

See, that's pretty useful information right there.

So this really wasn't about guns or gun control at all then? Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I never saw any gendarme with a machineguns.
I'm pretty sure you saw military patrols (we have them in the high-traffic area, like train stations or airports, when the threat level for terrorism is considered substancial - "plan vigie-pirate").

(and yes, gendarmes are technically military too, but they are normally the law enforcement branch of it)

I guess it is possible, but they weren't wearing camouflage or even fatigues. They seemed to be dressed in the standard blue uniforms I only saw being worn by gendarmes. And this was prior to 9/11. It was in the late 90s.

 

[kochman]

See, that's pretty useful information right there.

So this really wasn't about guns or gun control at all then? Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

You think that because it fits your agenda.
I guess helicopter is the only way to get to an island... I mean, you think this would have happened in NYC, for example? Out on Ellis Island, for example?

 

[Behind The Mask]

You think that because it fits your agenda.

One could argue that statement a double edged sword, no?

 

[JollyRoger]

You think that because it fits your agenda.
I guess helicopter is the only way to get to an island... I mean, you think this would have happened in NYC, for example? Out on Ellis Island, for example?

NYC has tougher gun control than Norway, so it would likely be a more successful operation thanks to the gun control laws.

 

[Labtec600]

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.

From what I understand, Community Service Officer is just a security guard - they patrol around acting as a deterrent. If something does happen, they call the real police.

And the officer is usually in a low crime area or a certain development - not crime ridden areas of a city. So to say that Arming the office is the cause of the violence by the people is insane.




And back to the OP - even if that Officer was armed it wouldnt have made a difference because I'm sure he was the first person the guy targeted.

The real issue is why it took an hour and a half to get over there - to me that's crazy. They said because they couldnt get a boat - nobody on that lake owns a boat they could have used? Do people in Norway not fish?

 

[warpus]

And back to the OP - even if that Officer was armed it wouldnt have made a difference because I'm sure he was the first person the guy targeted.

The real issue is why it took an hour and a half to get over there - to me that's crazy. They said because they couldnt get a boat - nobody on that lake owns a boat they could have used? Do people in Norway not fish?

I was reading earlier today about a German tourist who happened to have a boat right there when the shooting started. He thought it was fireworks (or something) but then saw people screaming and jumping into the water. He took his boat out and saved 20-30 lives.

Here's the full story, I might have messed up the details as I read it earlier and I'm pretty damn out of it today