Oslo Blast Gun Derail

[Seth]

The fact that my neighbor is a cowardly, paranoid, panty-waist pussy of a worthless waste of oxygen and carbon who fears his neighbors so much that he's willing to sacrifice them to criminal violence just so he can feel better doesn't have any effect on my right to be lawfully armed for self defense. He'll just have to cower inside his house and piss his pants at the thought that everyone around him has more courage and fortitude than he does and that they have resolved not to be helpless, shivering sheeple.

I could cower or I could just get society to shoot the cunt that wants to wander around with a deadly firearm knowing it will get him a mandatory 5 years in jail. I feel safe the neighbour no longer feels anything society wins

Cowards get other people to do their dirty work for them. Courageous people do the work themselves.

[mistermack]

The big fallacy being written here is that a number of armed citizens would have kept the body count down. Well firstly, this guy had planned this for years. He had some very powerful weapons. Are the citizens going to be carrying assault rifles?
If there is a guy with an assault rifle, and I've got a little handgun, I'm heading in the opposite direction, thanks.
Also, he would be wearing body armour if he knew people would be armed with guns.
Would the "citizens" be going round in full body armour?
Would they risk a shot from a distance with a handgun at someone who had a powerful rifle and body armour? I'm sure that Clint would, but nobody with any sense would.
The loonies would just adjust their tactics according to the threat.

Also, having armed citizens strutting around at every event would be nauseating and cost far more lives than it would ever save. They are likely to over-react at the slightest opportunity, like the typical american homeowner does.
They might possibly reduce the body count when something like this happens, although it's debatable, but they would increase it overall with mistakes, accidents, and by themselves going beserk.

[Robert_S]

The most crime free neighborhood I've ever lived in was inhabited largely by gun owners.

The fact that my neighbor is a cowardly, paranoid, panty-waist pussy of a worthless waste of oxygen and carbon who fears his neighbors so much that he's willing to sacrifice them to criminal violence just so he can feel better doesn't have any effect on my right to be lawfully armed for self defense. He'll just have to cower inside his house and piss his pants at the thought that everyone around him has more courage and fortitude than he does and that they have resolved not to be helpless, shivering sheeple.

I could cower or I could just get society to shoot the cunt that wants to wander around with a deadly firearm knowing it will get him a mandatory 5 years in jail. I feel safe the neighbour no longer feels anything society wins

Cowards get other people to do their dirty work for them. Courageous people do the work themselves.

It's like munching on a hamburger and crying about the mean old hunters.

Thank you Mr Jonno. I'm starting to find more common ground with Seth than I thought I would.

[FBM]

You know what? I'm just about sick of hearing people who live in countries that don't allow casual gun ownership (i.e. a lot of us) categorised as "cowardly, paranoid, panty-waist pussy of a worthless waste of oxygen", "helpless, shivering sheeple", "already effectively dead", "emasculated PC sheep/drones", "cowardly fucks", "Perhaps it's common sense that has been bred out of you city folk".

I don't give a damn that you're responding to MrJonno. Every time you defend your stance using these pathetic and demeaning insults, you fire them not just at him, but at every other person who has grown up with no need whatsoever for casual gun ownership. And that includes me.

Fortunately for you, there are no "group insult" rules on this board. Carry on.

Sorry, TA, I never intended to insult you. I'm only saying, in response to MrJonno, et al, that if you're not willing to defend your own life and those of your loved ones against real - not hypothetical or imagined - assaults, then what right have you to expect people like me and real police officers to protect your lives for you? Why should the defense burden be shifted in such a manner if we all pay our taxes? I'm willing to fight alongside anybody in defense against turds like that Oslo fella. But if the guy next to me is cringing and refusing to stand up and fire his weapoon, hoping for outside salvation, then fuck him. He has made his choice, and I will look for the truely defenseless to defend. I wish I were better at explaining this position, but this is what we're stuck with, looks like.

[Seth]

Why did you add that last bit, TA? You made your point well enough, then added that last bit ... for what purpose? Not a moderatorly attempt to put a person in their place ... a reference to your position in order to prop up or boost your point, I hope? So unnecessary when you can make your point well enough without.

Bloody hell, Charlou, no it wasn't. I'd have made exactly the same post regardless.

I added that bit to point out that those who have been using the phrases I quoted are hiding behind their generalisations to post things that would be considered personal attacks if they were being addressed to an individual, which as far as I'm concerned is nothing more than ad hom in disguise.

Well, yes, of course it is. MrJonno's been tossing such oblique ad homs around for some time now and you didn't really think I was going to let that pass unchallenged now did you? He's been deliberately maligning me by obliquely putting me in the same camp as the Oslo terrorist in spite of the fact that I've spent my entire adult life training to take out such people at great personal risk. That's fine by me because any rational adult can see exactly what he's doing, but I'm not going to allow him to get away with it without rebuttal, so I'm using the same tactics he is very deliberately and in a carefully calculated manner to make a point.

In the process, I also get to score a large number of points against hoplophobes and the dangerous arguments of collectivist disarmament. If you feel insulted by being grouped with sheeple, the solution is quite simple: don't be a sheeple and don't support the baaing of other sheeple. Repudiate them and speak reason, logic and truth instead. Silence may not be seen as assent, but taking offense at some insult not directed at you indicates that I've touched a nerve, which is the whole point of having the debate in the first place; to air and discuss the various opinions.

[Gallstones]

I think the very point some people are trying to make is objectively reasonable: If some of the victims had been armed and competent, the call to the police would have been to report an attempted massacre.

I think the point that other people are making is the sort of people who make those points are the types who were committing those acts of mass murder.

I can guarantee gun laws are not going to be relaxed after this, there will be a mass crack down on them

Did you just call some of us [latent] mass murderers?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cowards get other people to do their dirty work for them. Courageous people do the work themselves.

So do crazy fuckers. And it's sometimes hard to sort them out.

[Seth]

The big fallacy being written here is that a number of armed citizens would have kept the body count down. Well firstly, this guy had planned this for years. He had some very powerful weapons. Are the citizens going to be carrying assault rifles?

Sure, why not? In these days of terrorist attacks, it would not be the least bit imprudent for a summer camp to have an arsenal of high-powered weapons and trained staff capable of using them against just such an eventuality.

If there is a guy with an assault rifle, and I've got a little handgun, I'm heading in the opposite direction, thanks.

And you will likely get shot in the back as you do so. Unless he's sniping at you from beyond handgun range, which did not seem to be the case, your "little handgun" is as effective a tool of defense as his assault rifle is of offense. One application of high-speed lead to the proper place ends the fight, and it doesn't matter a fuck whether it comes from a "little handgun" (carry a bigger one) or an assault rifle or a 105mm howitzer. Accuracy and speed are what's important, not caliber.

Also, he would be wearing body armour if he knew people would be armed with guns.

So shoot him in the head. What, you aren't a good enough shot to put a round in someone's head from 25 feet away? Practice more.

Would the "citizens" be going round in full body armour?

Sure, why not? Racked right next to the assault rifles and handguns in the armory ought to be body armor. That's how it is in my bedroom gun safe.

Would they risk a shot from a distance with a handgun at someone who had a powerful rifle and body armour?

Sure, why not, if they aren't base cowards. Any armed citizen watching someone slaughter unarmed children is a fucking coward not worth the oxygen it takes to sustain his life if he refuses to intervene.

I'm sure that Clint would, but nobody with any sense would.

You must hang out with a lot of cowards.

The loonies would just adjust their tactics according to the threat.

And the armed citizens would adjust theirs. Gunfights are dangerous things, but a gunfight is always preferable to a slaughter of unarmed innocents.

Also, having armed citizens strutting around at every event would be nauseating and cost far more lives than it would ever save.

Demonstrable lie.

They are likely to over-react at the slightest opportunity, like the typical american homeowner does.

Demonstrable lie.

They might possibly reduce the body count when something like this happens, although it's debatable, but they would increase it overall with mistakes, accidents, and by themselves going beserk.

Unfounded paranoid hoplophobe assertion.

[Seth]

Cowards get other people to do their dirty work for them. Courageous people do the work themselves.

So do crazy fuckers. And it's sometimes hard to sort them out.

Precisely correct. You can just never know if the guy in the police uniform standing next to you is a crazy fucker bent on mass murder. All the more reason to pack heat, just in case. And since it's concealed, nobody will know you have it until 0.75 seconds before you use it to stop the attack. And because you're a law-abiding citizen, it's a harmless lump of metal unless and until you have a legal right to discharge it.

You've very neatly made my argument for me. Thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cowards get other people to do their dirty work for them. Courageous people do the work themselves.

So do crazy fuckers. And it's sometimes hard to sort them out.

Precisely correct. You can just never know if the guy in the police uniform standing next to you is a crazy fucker bent on mass murder. All the more reason to pack heat, just in case. And since it's concealed, nobody will know you have it until 0.75 seconds before you use it to stop the attack. And because you're a law-abiding citizen, it's a harmless lump of metal unless and until you have a legal right to discharge it.

You've very neatly made my argument for me. Thanks.

Not your argument, because my point was sane.

[Ian]

Seth's reasoning reminds me of something Archie Bunker once said. His suggestion for foiling or deterring airplane hijackers was to arm the rest of the passengers. Airlines could make a good investment in a couple hundred pistols per plane, pass them out to everyone as they boarded, and collect them after they landed. What could go wrong?

[mistermack]

I'm willing to fight alongside anybody in defense against turds like that Oslo fella. But if the guy next to me is cringing and refusing to stand up and fire his weapoon, hoping for outside salvation, then fuck him. He has made his choice, and I will look for the truely defenseless to defend. I wish I were better at explaining this position, but this is what we're stuck with, looks like.

You're starting to daydream out loud, like Seth, do you realise that?
Real life isn't like the magnificent seven, you know.
It's only daydreams that turn out how you want. Even in real dreams, things keep going wrong, and real life can be a bitch.
I blame the films myself. Some people are never the same after a dose of Clint Eastwood.

[Gallstones]

Man dressed as police man gets off boat asks if they have heard about the bomb , says it was an attack on the party ,asks if there are any guns held on the Island ... The idea if there were guns held on the island there would have been no massacre is not certain is it ?

Why would the presence of guns on the island have caused him to reconsider? He was committed. Given his agenda, knowing if there were guns on the island would be valuable information to him--someone might shoot back, and he could appropriate them if opportunity presented.

Does this mean I'm thinking like a gun crazed latent mass murderer?


I wonder if he had not been dressed as a policeman, if he had stepped on the island, rifle in hand in regular clothes, if more would have been alarmed sooner and been able to get away?

the last figures I saw for the US stated that the ratio of crimes commited using guns to crimes stopped by guns was about 6:1

[Robert_S]

You know what? I'm just about sick of hearing people who live in countries that don't allow casual gun ownership (i.e. a lot of us) categorised as "cowardly, paranoid, panty-waist pussy of a worthless waste of oxygen", "helpless, shivering sheeple", "already effectively dead", "emasculated PC sheep/drones", "cowardly fucks", "Perhaps it's common sense that has been bred out of you city folk".

I don't give a damn that you're responding to MrJonno. Every time you defend your stance using these pathetic and demeaning insults, you fire them not just at him, but at every other person who has grown up with no need whatsoever for casual gun ownership. And that includes me.

Fortunately for you, there are no "group insult" rules on this board. Carry on.

Sorry, TA, I never intended to insult you. I'm only saying, in response to MrJonno, et al, that if you're not willing to defend your own life and those of your loved ones against real - not hypothetical or imagined - assaults, then what right have you to expect people like me and real police officers to protect your lives for you? Why should the defense burden be shifted in such a manner if we all pay our taxes? I'm willing to fight alongside anybody in defense against turds like that Oslo fella. But if the guy next to me is cringing and refusing to stand up and fire his weapoon, hoping for outside salvation, then fuck him. He has made his choice, and I will look for the truely defenseless to defend. I wish I were better at explaining this position, but this is what we're stuck with, looks like.

Perhaps some Merkins are just a little defensive about being thought of as a nation of dangerous gun nuts just waiting for the excuse to open fire on someone. Not that you have ever said anything close to that TA, but it's a kind of attitude I pick up on a lot, and I don't think I'm the only one. I don't even own a gun and don't really care to, but in certain circles I can get the most prickly of vibes from the mere mention of the fact that they don't really bother me.

[Gallstones]

I think sensible gun control is needed , I don't think a population that gets themselves hooked on Meth or Crack can just be given free access to as many guns and as much ammo as they like . I'm not a paranoid anti-gun nut but I'd rather not live in a place where you can get shot for knocking on the wrong door looking for a party after the pub closes . This idea that we would all be safer if only we all carried guns is straight out of the wild west .... and wasn't that a nice safe time ?

"Population" that gets itself hooked on Meth and Crack?

Odd term.


Anyone who wants guns and ammo can get as much as they can pay for, it only takes money.
That is true no matter where a person lives or what the laws are.

I don't know how safe the "wild" west was. Do you?