Oslo Blast Gun Derail

[MrJonno]

Could someone tell me of prohibition that is completely effective?

A woman who never has sex will never get pregnant, true but boring. Unless you are a Christian of course.

Not true IVF !

[Seth]

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.

Which obscure insult aimed at me is, of course, ignorant bullshit.

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

Sadly yes, there will most likely be a hoplophobic paranoid overreaction and a "mass crackdown" that will have no more effect on preventing this sort of thing than the existing laws against mass murder did.

That's the point that idiots who insult gun owners based on gross ignorance will never have the capacity to understand: criminals don't obey anti-gun laws...or laws against murder. All such laws do is make the population even more vulnerable and less likely to be able to defend themselves, which ensures that the next attack will be all the more effective.

When even the police don't carry guns and you have to wait an hour and a half for a special armed unit to respond, that society is ripe for all manner of terrorist attack.

Israel, on the other hand, allows many law-abiding citizens to openly carry fully automatic machine guns in addition to handguns, a policy that is quite effective in reducing casualties in such incidents. And we don't see people suddenly going insane merely because they have touched a firearm and shooting up their neighborhoods in Israel, or in the US.

The sort of asinine, idiotic, childish calumnies presented by MrJonno make it difficult to have sympathy for people who remain defiantly and deliberately ignorant of simple truths and logical facts about mass shootings, the primary one of which is that in every single instance in the last two decades, no person other than the killer has been armed, and therefore nobody was able to even try to put a stop to the killing in any even marginally effective way.

The real issue here is the divide between societies that are willing to sacrifice some number of their own citizens as victims to hoplophobic political correctness in order to try to achieve some abstract vision of collectivistic amity and peace and societies that recognize that evil exists in the world and that each individual has a right to be armed against that evil.

It's a conflict between collectivism, where the individual and his/her rights are disrespected, ignored and suppressed in order to meet an abstract collectivist goal, and individualism, where society honors and respects the right of peaceable, law-abiding members of the community to prepare to defend themselves against any and all threats to their safety and welfare.

[MrJonno]

It's a conflict between collectivism, where the individual and his/her rights are disrespected, ignored and suppressed in order to meet an abstract collectivist goal, and individualism, where society honors and respects the right of peaceable, law-abiding members of the community to prepare to defend themselves against any and all threats to their safety and welfare.

If you don't want to be part of society (collective if you prefer) , leave , obey its laws while you try to change them or expect to get locked up/shot dead by representatives of such society

[FBM]

Rights are human creations

imaginations

so as natural as a car or a gun which isnt my usual definition of natural

So either redefine or propose something supernatural and see where that leads.

and you can't physically protect shit if enough people wish you harm.

So far, we've only been discussing a lone lunatic trying to kill as many as he can. Moving the goalposts isn't a successful argumentation strategy. Stick to the point at hand, please.

Best way of protecting youself is to ensure your neighbour knows he will be arrested if he possess a gun and that law is enforced

That only works if he isn't a nutcase. As for the issue at hand, the Norwegian nutcase couldn't care less what the gun laws were. How do you propose to protect yourself from those who either don't give a shit about the laws or who are actively out to flaunt them?

As for emasculating ,politically correct want to throw in cultural marxism as well and all sounds frightening familiar

I do not accept this strawman argument, as it is a disengenuous attempt to link my argument with a completely unrelated political theory. Guilt by fallacious association doesn't hold water these days. Sorry. Try again.

[Seth]

There is nothing unnatural in the universe. That dichotomy is false. Humans are perfectly natural beings with perfectly natural behavior. Emasculate a human, and you get one who passively accepts his death sentence. I don't deny you that option; I just don't choose it for myself or the loved ones I can physically protect.

Rights are human creations so as natural as a car or a gun which isnt my usual definition of natural and you can't physically protect shit if enough people wish you harm. Best way of protecting youself is to ensure your neighbour knows he will be arrested if he possess a gun and that law is enforced

What a childishly ignorant and infantile statement. It's obvious to any adult, and even to children, that this person didn't care if he got arrested. In fact he was evidently looking forward to getting arrested, having completed his plan, so that he can maximize the political message he intended to send. Fat lot of good your "plan" would have done in this case.

Microcephalic morons might think that a stern warning that any illegal activity will result in arrest will be enough to prevent nuts from committing crimes, but adults and children with more than half a brain know that laws are written on pieces of paper that cannot provide any defense against someone willing to wipe his ass with the piece of paper and go right ahead and break the law anyway.

Adults also understand that unlike drooling idiots who think that everyone is incapable of protecting themselves and must therefore stand there vacantly like a sheep waiting for the police to save them, it is possible to effectively protect oneself and one's family, and indeed one's neighbors and community through the proper and well-trained application of force, including the use of firearms.

[MrJonno]

That only works if he isn't a nutcase. As for the issue at hand, the Norwegian nutcase couldn't care less what the gun laws were. How do you propose to protect yourself from those who either don't give a shit about the laws or who are actively out to flaunt them?

Ring ring police, think my neighbour has a gun saw something long and thin under a blanket. Police ok we will go around and talk to /arrest/shoot him dead.
Neighbour gets shot dead, oh well only a fishing rod but mistakes happen anything is better than having your neighbour armed.

Its gets harder and harder to regulate guns when you allow some of them, its a lot easier when they are all banned as you don't have to worry about law abiding citizens with them

[MrJonno]

What a childishly ignorant and infantile statement. It's obvious to any adult, and even to children, that this person didn't care if he got arrested. In fact he was evidently looking forward to getting arrested, having completed his plan, so that he can maximize the political message he intended to send. Fat lot of good your "plan" would have done in this case.

Well obviously police intelligence failed, they should have been monitoring extremist websites and communications (like some you get here) and arrrested the guy before he started and hopefully the Norwegians and everyone else in Europe will.

A good start would be looking for anyone who uses marxism to describe anyone else, emasculation is a good one too. Search their houses to see if they have any firearms and then lock em up and throw away the key if they do

[Kim salabim]

OK, so maybe he never intended a sootout with the police, but he still had an hour and a half to shoot unarmed people at will, without challenge. If there had been at least one among the 250 people on the island legally registered to carry a firearm, that person would've had at least a chance to save dozens.

The guy had planned and plotted for nine years.
One of the first things he did when he got on the island was to walk in to the house where the off-duty cop was, on a sivil job there as a guard, and shot him dead. The cop was dead before he even got suspicious. How would a gun help the competent cop in this situation?
Seems like Breivik had a lot of intel on the targets, no?

[FBM]

Woohoo! Neighbor was killed for having a fishing rod! That fucking passive father of three deserved it for having such an edgy hobby as fishing!

[MrJonno]

Woohoo! Neighbor was killed for having a fishing rod! That fucking passive father of three deserved it for having such an edgy hobby as fishing!

The actual example I was thinking of was a chair leg in a plastic bag (and the guy did have a record for armed robbery) , but if tragic mistakes like that are the price of ensuring we don't get guns flooding the streets then its a price that society has to pay

[Seth]

It's a conflict between collectivism, where the individual and his/her rights are disrespected, ignored and suppressed in order to meet an abstract collectivist goal, and individualism, where society honors and respects the right of peaceable, law-abiding members of the community to prepare to defend themselves against any and all threats to their safety and welfare.

If you don't want to be part of society (collective if you prefer) , leave , obey its laws while you try to change them or expect to get locked up/shot dead by representatives of such society

Or, as it seems more likely, by some nutcase who views the disarmed members of the collectivist society as sheeple ripe for the slaugher.

But you're right, and here in the US we have eschewed sheep-like dependence on the government to provide us with individual personal safety against the inevitable criminality that exists in every society that no government or police force on earth can or ever has been able to provide, and instead 40 states have authorized law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense with substantial beneficial effects on lowering violent crime rates without any concomitant rise in gun accidents or the sort of vacuous and infantile claims of blood running in the gutters that mindless hoplophobes natter on about in their delusional ignorance.

Norway, not so much. The rest of Europe, not so much.

What that means is that there will be more mass shootings in Europe and fewer in the US. There will be more criminal victimization in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more terrorism in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more government oppression and tyranny in Europe, and less in the US.

The grand experiment in whether it is better to arm or disarm the law-abiding population has been completed long ago and except for Switzerland the European collectivist anti-gun disarmament model has been thoroughly and scientifically debunked in detail and Europe has repeatedly been demonstrated just how vulnerable a disarmed citizenry is, at the cost of more than 100 million human lives.

Thus, Europe is hoist on the petard of collectivist insanity and ignorance and richly deserves what happens to it for it's collective stupidity. Any sane and rational people, after such a horrific attack, would demand that their government return to them their natural human right to effective personal self-defense against criminals and terrorists.

I'm willing to bet that the survivors and the dead on what should become a shrine to anti-gun idiocy were fervently wishing that someone, anyone present other than the killer had possessed a gun and the skill to use it. That's the nearly universal sentiment of such survivors, you see.

But drooling idiots who malign and attempt to demean those of who wish the same thing for the victims and who choose to be the sort of person that every victim of a violent crime wishes were around when they are attacked are simply too stupid to ever understand what it's like to face a deranged attacker as a helpless, defenseless victim of one's own government policies unless it happens to them, which it should, by way of simple justice and as an education in reality.

[FBM]

And yet somehow you don't think of your position as extreme compared to the many millenia of human evolution during which the possesion of a weapon was just common sense. Whatever, man. Roll over and die, then. I won't waste a bullet saving your life. You're already effectively dead. RIP.

[MrJonno]

What that means is that there will be more mass shootings in Europe and fewer in the US. There will be more criminal victimization in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more terrorism in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more government oppression and tyranny in Europe, and less in the US.

In which alternative reality is this?, well my neighbour having a gun scares me a million times more than any terrorist or government and luckily thats never likely to be much of a possibility

[Seth]

OK, so maybe he never intended a sootout with the police, but he still had an hour and a half to shoot unarmed people at will, without challenge. If there had been at least one among the 250 people on the island legally registered to carry a firearm, that person would've had at least a chance to save dozens.

The guy had planned and plotted for nine years.
One of the first things he did when he got on the island was to walk in to the house where the off-duty cop was, on a sivil job there as a guard, and shot him dead. The cop was dead before he even got suspicious. How would a gun help the competent cop in this situation?
Seems like Breivik had a lot of intel on the targets, no?

When I was much younger, about 19, before I became a police officer, I worked as an armed security guard in a bank for a short time. I was expected to sit in a glass-walled office immediately inside the front door and look official, so that presumably bank robbers would see me and decide not to rob the bank. I quit that job because even at 19 I recognized the simple fact that to an armed criminal, a badge and a gun are not a deterrent, they are target identification, so I was constantly hiding in corners and lurking behind concrete pillars in the lobby so that I wouldn't be the first person shot by the bank robbers. The bank manager insisted I be a target, and I declined. He too was an idiot about tactics for armed encounters, so I quit.

The primary benefit of widespread lawful concealed carry is that the criminal CANNOT KNOW who among their potential victims might be armed and prepared to shoot back. This is because, obviously, the weapons are concealed and no one knows which of their neighbors has one. This has a very strong deterrent effect on criminals of every stripe, as demonstrated by the significant (8 to 15 percent) drop in violent crime that occurs very quickly after concealed carry is made lawful in a community or area. Criminals mostly don't want to get killed, they just want to steal stuff.

Now, the deranged shooter is less concerned with getting killed, but would generally like to be unopposed in order to maximize his chance to kill. That's why such people choose venues where it is unlikely that the targets will be armed. Virginia Tech, Columbine, Dunblane and now Oslo, all go to prove the point that such persons choose unarmed, vulnerable populations precisely because they fear being prevented from achieving their objective.

Had a dozen or so of the adults on that island been lawfully carrying a concealed weapon, the situation would likely have been much, much different. This is a simple fact, but when it's stated, drooling pinheads insist on maligning those who point it out rather than engaging what's left of their brain to acknowledge it.

[Seth]

What that means is that there will be more mass shootings in Europe and fewer in the US. There will be more criminal victimization in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more terrorism in Europe, and less in the US. There will be more government oppression and tyranny in Europe, and less in the US.

In which alternative reality is this?, well my neighbour having a gun scares me a million times more than any terrorist or government and luckily thats never likely to be much of a possibility

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.