Oslo Blast Gun Derail

[Atheist-Lite]

The Uk was successful - maybe because being a island smuggling is diffcult? Mostly it's knife crime people fear here, these days.

[Seth]

So, would you ever wear a peace brassard?

No, I'd wear a .45 (and do).

There's no situation where you would wear the brassard?

Nope.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, would you ever wear a peace brassard?

No, I'd wear a .45 (and do).

There's no situation where you would wear the brassard?

Nope.

Massively inflexible. And probably not true.

[Lozzer]

This is so sad :/



On the bottom left, that's a child begging for his life.

It's sad indeed. Pity he wasn't a camp counselor returning fire with his legally-carried concealed weapon.

Because having more guns is the solution to everything, isn't it? Do you know how this fuck-bag Nazi attained his cache of weapons in the first place? through a license.

[Seth]

The Uk was successful - maybe because being a island smuggling is diffcult? Mostly it's knife crime people fear here, these days.

The UK was NOT successful. There were nearly 13000 firearms offenses in 2009/10 and 40 firearms homicides.

And people rightfully fear knife crime, the best defense against which is having superior firepower in the form of a handgun.

People like to ignore the fact that lawfully carried handguns may be used to defend against all manner of violent crime, not just gun crime.

And it's immoral for your government to disarm those who might wish to carry a handgun for self-defense against a knife attack, just as it is immoral for any government to disarm any law-abiding citizen who might deem it necessary or desirable to carry defensive arms. In doing so, such governments ignore the rights of the individuals who are victims of violent crime to defend themselves using effective means and turn them into acceptable casualties in their statistical analysis.

It's all very abstract and philosophical until YOU are the one standing in the water begging a deranged gunman not to kill you. Then it becomes very real and you're wishing that your government hadn't banned everyone but the murderer from carrying a gun lawfully. I'm willing to bet that every single gun-banner and citizenry-disarmament advocate would be pissing in their pants and begging for someone, anyone to pull out a gun and stop the shooter if they were in the position of that poor bastard in the photo. That's certainly what the students who survived the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings said.

Fucking hypocrites. I'm getting pretty damned sick of pantie-waist cowards crying about innocent children being slaughtered by a deranged gunman while advocating and supporting a disarmed citizenry out of the other side of their mouths. What the fuck do they expect when they remove the guns from the hands of good, law-abiding citizens...that deranged killers are going to stop being deranged killers? Fucking idiots.

Nut up or shut up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yep, all of those kids should have been armed.

[Azathoth]

And people rightfully fear knife crime, the best defense against which is having superior firepower in the form of a handgun.

Utter bollocks Seth. If someone has a knife drawn on you and is close enough to use it they have gutted you by the time you have gone for your gun. The best defence is a decent grappling martial art

[Seth]

This is so sad :/



On the bottom left, that's a child begging for his life.

It's sad indeed. Pity he wasn't a camp counselor returning fire with his legally-carried concealed weapon.

Because having more guns is the solution to everything, isn't it? Do you know how this fuck-bag Nazi attained his cache of weapons in the first place? through a license.

So what? That just goes to prove that gun bans don't work and licensing systems won't keep you safe either. The ONLY solution that even begins to provide for your individual safety in such situations is for YOU to have a gun on your person and have the training necessary to put it to use when YOU are attacked. The police won't be there and there's no guarantee that some other citizen will come to your defense. Your safety is YOUR PROBLEM. If you refuse to train and arm yourself to provide for your own security, then nobody should lament your death at the hands of a deranged killer.

The problem here was the licensing system that makes it difficult or impossible for the average law-abiding citizen to easily qualify to carry a concealed handgun or other weapon in public. Deranged killers who have no history of derangement who can qualify to possess firearms (including machine guns in Norway I believe) on the condition that they not carry them except to authorized shooting ranges are like any other criminal who can turn a weapon to illegal use. The ONLY defense against someone who turns an otherwise legally-possessed weapon to criminal use is for their victims to be similarly armed so that they can defend THEMSELVES, because at the narrow passage, there will be no one else in a position to help them in time.

This is a simple fact of life and has nothing to do with politics. You can choose to be an unarmed sheeple at the mercy of the jackals of society, or you can choose to be a wolf and prepare to defend yourself and your family against predators. I choose the latter. What you do is up to you, but I won't lament the passing of another sheeple. Adapt or die.

And now I'm going to quit posting and get ready to attend the Independence Institute's "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" event, where EVERYONE will be armed, and NOBODY is likely to be shot by a deranged killer with a free pass to kill unarmed sheeple.

[devogue]

The UK was NOT successful. There were nearly 13000 firearms offenses in 2009/10 and 40 firearms homicides.

And in 2009 there were 9,146 firearm homicides in the US. The UK population is about 20% of the USA's, so an "unsuccessful" firearm homicide rate would be about 1,800 - but there were only 40.

Hmmm.

[Bella Fortuna]

Gun culture and the fetishisation of firearms in this country nauseates and embarrasses me - I do hope that I am able to move away, someday...

[Seth]

And people rightfully fear knife crime, the best defense against which is having superior firepower in the form of a handgun.

Utter bollocks Seth. If someone has a knife drawn on you and is close enough to use it they have gutted you by the time you have gone for your gun. The best defence is a decent grappling martial art

Wanna bet? Besides, if you let someone with a knife that close to you in the first place, you've failed the first requirement of an armed citizen: situational awareness.

Just for the record, you're right, knives are far more dangerous than firearms at close range, which is why I'd much rather face someone armed with a handgun than a knife when corp-a-corp. However, proper defensive handgun training allows me to defend against a close-range knife attack while simultaneously drawing and firing effectively at body-contact range. Sure, I'll take wounds, but I'll deal them too.

The real point, however, is that in the vast majority of cases, when the assailant pulls a knife, his intent is to use the knife to intimidate you in order to rob you, and he is not generally in a killing mindset. This means that he has to change his thought process if resistance is met, and he's still most likely to try to intimidate rather than make a killing attack because his purpose is to rob, not kill. This means that his reaction time to a threat against him will be substantially longer than if he is simply trying to kill. The same is true of a robber who is using a firearm.

On the other hand, I know, and have trained for a long, long time for exactly such situations, so I know precisely what I'm going to do if someone threatens me with a knife, and there will be no hesitation whatsoever on my part. As soon as I see the knife presented in a threatening manner at a distance of less than 21 feet, I'm going to draw and fire and render the assailant incapable of continuing the attack. I will ask no questions, I will give no warnings, I will not wait to find out what he claims is his intent, I will simply perceive a deadly threat and I will react to it as I've trained. That means that in less than 1.75 seconds I will have fired two rounds to his chest and one to his head, which is my demonstrated and documented best time. This is a fraction of a second longer than the time necessary for the assailant to perceive the movement (.75 seconds) and react to it (.75 seconds) given the best-case scenario for him which is that he's primed to instantly attack, which is generally not the case. This means that even if he's within arm's reach, my chances are excellent that I can draw and fire three rounds faster than he can react and do me significant harm.

The key is focus. His focus is on gaining compliance so he can get what he wants without a lot of trouble, and it's most likely that he is reluctant to actually kill someone and so will hesitate to do so, preferring to try further threats to gain compliance. My focus is on neutralizing the threat and nothing else, and I have no reluctance to shoot him dead on the spot if he threatens me, so my reaction times are not delayed.

The same is not true of the deranged killer who is simply intent on killing people, as in this case, but if you're the first person he takes aim and shoots at, it's just your bad luck and sometimes you die. However, if you're NOT the first person he kills, there's plenty of time to put your weapon into action if you're properly trained.

[Seth]

Gun culture and the fetishisation of firearms in this country nauseates and embarrasses me - I do hope that I am able to move away, someday...

Why don't you move to Oslo, I hear it's real safe over there?

Oh, wait....

[Seth]

The UK was NOT successful. There were nearly 13000 firearms offenses in 2009/10 and 40 firearms homicides.

And in 2009 there were 9,146 firearm homicides in the US. The UK population is about 20% of the USA's, so an "unsuccessful" firearm homicide rate would be about 1,800 - but there were only 40.

Hmmm.

And there were as many as 2.5 million people in the US who were NOT the victims of violent crime because they were armed. The same cannot be said for the UK.

The point being that claims that gun bans prevent gun crimes is specious and false. You can bandy statistics about all day, but for the 40 people who were murdered by firearms, who were all disarmed and rendered helpless by their government, and for the other thousands upon thousands who were victimized, injured and killed by criminals armed with OTHER deadly weapons like knives and bludgeons, the government's policy of prohibiting them from carrying effective defensive armament, even so much as OC spray or tear gas, is a very real violation of their individual right to life.

The statistical argument is a bogus one because it reduces those who are killed and victimized to the status of numbers and it fails to acknowledge their individual right to decide for themselves what level of self-defense armament is necessary or desirable.

And the right of the individual to effectively defend himself against violent crime is absolute, and may not morally be interfered with by anyone, including government. To do so is one of the worst acts of tyranny imaginable, and is right up there with government-sponsored genocide. Any government that does so is illegitimate and needs to be taken down and replaced with one that honors and respects the rights of the individual over abstract social policy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gun culture and the fetishisation of firearms in this country nauseates and embarrasses me - I do hope that I am able to move away, someday...

Why don't you move to Oslo, I hear it's real safe over there?

Oh, wait....

It's safer than it is here, Seth, and you know it.

[Rum]

Seth makes me puke. 87 kids are dead and he makes it an opportunity to spew his libertarian bullshit. He should be ashamed of himself.