I wonder how long it will take to learn that no society no matter how many anti-gun laws it has can protect that society without having armed security available ? We have had this in OZ, it has happened in the US, UK and now Norway. One armed security person could have stopped this carnage of a single armed lunatic killing so many people.
Real shame, at least 80 dead by what Norwegians say is a right-winger with anti-Muslim views. I'm surprised some of the far right nuts we have in this country haven't done something similar. Some of them rightwing gun lovers have enough arms to start a war of there own if they had a mind to. There were 13,636 murders in the US for the year 2009. Of those 9,146 were caused by firearms. When crazy people have easy access to guns there will be nut cases killing people with them.
The prime minister of Norway was very clear that the last thing they wanted to do after this incident, is to reduce freedom and tighten control then he finished off by saying that is a landmark of Norway. He did not want to ruin that landmark in any way whatsoever, instead he referred to punishing those responsible, not punishing the nation.
Quote from: hutch-- on July 23, 2011, 07:52:12 AM
I wonder how long it will take to learn that no society no matter how many anti-gun laws it has can protect that society without having armed security available ? We have had this in OZ, it has happened in the US, UK and now Norway. One armed security person could have stopped this carnage of a single armed lunatic killing so many people.
So how many people with guns?
700 kids....
So maybe 7 armed security? So that if 3 are evil mass murderers in disguise they are outnumbered....?
This guy was dressed as a police officer I think.... Generally these terrorism issues, they tend to dress to the part *and have the guns*.... On an island that size you would need many many people with guns to prevent such a tradegy....
If you give so many people guns then each gun, gun training is another chance to kill, there or anywhere....
Remember this guy was dressed as a police officer.... When the other armed security comes near he only needs to point at one of the kids as if they are the gunman then shoot the real security guard.... Much better would have been proper searches for knives, guns, proper role keeping and monitoring who was who etc....
QuoteHe did not want to ruin that landmark in any way whatsoever, instead he referred to punishing those responsible, not punishing the nation.
Nuts jobs like that don't give a rats ass about being punished. Over 80 people dead because some nut case found it easy to get guns. There has to be a better way. It should not be so easy like it is in the US for crazy fanatical morons to get a hold of guns period!
Quote from: Bill Cravener on July 23, 2011, 04:08:17 PM
Nuts jobs like that don't give a rats ass about being punished. Over 80 people dead because some nut case found it easy to get guns. There has to be a better way. It should not be so easy like it is in the US for crazy fanatical morons to get a hold of guns period!
This guy is a right wing extremist. His friends told the media he posted quite alot of controversial texts on his facebook profile. The people he killed was all social democrats. Death toll has been increased to 92. 85 shot dead, 7 dead in the blast and another 90 hospitalized after the blast. He had quite alot of ammunition and weaponry reserves, he shot each person twice to make sure they were really dead. There can be no doubt that he had in mind to kill all social democrats on that island. When he came there, he wanted all people to gather, they had no idea why of course. Just amazing how much damage that man did
Pay attention that "Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami" claimed responsibility for the bombing in Oslo. :lol and they did not, it is already confirmed an ethnic norwegian did it solely for political reasons of his own. Many terrorists group lie about this, it is no surprise to me, they want to be given more credit than deserved.
Every time there is a bombing, some terror organization claim responsibility, automatically.
There is something fundamentally obvious about this recurring problem, one person gets a gun and goes and murders a large number of people simply because they can do it with no-one to stop them. it would take only one armed guard to stop them yet with this idiological burden that is foolish enough to think that you can wholly remove guns from the whole world that it can be stopped that way.
It is simply a matter of fact that gun will never be removed from the world and even with draconian anti-gun laws that many countries have, loonies get guns and shoot innocent people. Look at who lines up in the anti-gun supporters, Hitler did it, Mussolini did it, Stalin did it and in fact almost every dictator who wanted to control their country by fear and force did it yet the country with the lowest firearm murder rate is Switzerland where firearm ownership is very high.
The problem is in fact a simple one, when it easy to get a gun and where there is no resistance from unarmed people, this style of massacre will simply continue until governments stop being negligent and start protecting their own people. A loonie will think twice before busting into a place where they will get shot for trying to shoot other people. We don't see deranged gunmen busting into an army camp where there is already massive firepower and you don't see them trying to commit a massacre in a police station where there are many well armed people, they are cowards that commit their massacres in supermarkets, schools and other places where the victims cannot defend themselves.
The solution is simple, it takes one bullet to solve the problem from one armed security person and massacres of this type will end.
In Texas, we have a right-to-carry law.
Problem is that most places outlaw carrying a gun even with the license.
Like you said, one responsible person with a gun would have finished him off early on.
It might have helped if somebody had a gun and the right to shoot, but pre-planning exist for a reason. Terrorists take precaution and switch methods. Nothing really helps if a man wants to harm people. The only thing that will change is that everyone carries a gun and we have another tombstone society where everybody becomes cautious killers. :wink
The guy from Oslo had a license, he owned a glock, another gun and a shotgun. The bomb was probably ammonium nitrate bomb, he owned a geo farm and he could gain access to that sort of material. It is the same type used in oklahoma city in 1995.
Quote from: zemtex on July 24, 2011, 01:49:06 AM
Nothing really helps if a man wants to harm people.
For almost every one of these massacres one armed and competent person could have prevented many deaths.
What I think is needed is some type of non-lethal weapon with the stopping power of a gun, and that anyone can carry.
So I guess that's what we as a 21st century civilization must come to, that is we all must be armed at all times in order that someone can stop a loony before he kills other people. We just have to hope that all persons carrying are trained enough in the use of a weapon and are able to shot straight and not kill any innocents. I can just see it, you're in a crowd of people all carrying when some nut case who is also carrying starts firing randomly and then all hell breaks loose when everyone else starts firing back. Yes, that makes sense. I know I'd feel safer!
you guys all look to guns for a solution
the real solution is to remove the motivation, not the method
that is because the method has been there since before Cain killed Abel
now, i don't pretend to have that solution, but at least we're pointed in the right direction
Quote from: dedndave on July 24, 2011, 10:47:58 AM
you guys all look to guns for a solution
the real solution is to remove the motivation, not the method
I agree with you Dave. The thought of so many people being armed to me is frightening. Its just too damn easy for folks to buy guns here in the US. Hear in PA you must take drivers training before taking a drivers test and we all can agree that an automobile is a deadly weapon. Why is it we can't make it mandatory that you must be trained and pass a test before one can buy a hand gun and make that person responsible for the care of that weapon and face the responsibility for the theft of that weapon?
When you give it any thought this loony was dressed as an officer. Now lets say there was a security guard there I bet the first thing that nut would have done was to walk up to that security guy and blow his brains out first thing.
I just wonder, you guys who think we should all be armed have you ever even fired a weapon before? For that matter have you ever kill a living thing with one? I doubt it!
even more unfortunate that we cannot license people to become part of society
"you can't leave your house without a license to do so" - lol
this is the real issue, here
and, it's the real issue for terrorism, in general
people do what they do for a reason
it's the reason that we need to work on
much like drug abuse or illegal immigration
you see how far we have gotten by combating these problems with our current methods
I don't know anyone who thinks we should all be armed. I have no problem with sane, law-abiding citizens being armed, and where I live any person properly fitting this description can secure a right to do so legally by going through the program and getting a concealed-carry license. And where I live it's very normal, for boys at least, to grow up with guns and hunting.
The model we had here in OZ for a long time was that rifles did not need to be licenced but handguns were very hard to get a licence for. It was aimed at not being able to conceal a weapon. Many houses after ww2 had a 303 ex army rifle and almost every house had a 22 rifle in it somewhere.
The problem has been at various places where these types of massacres of unarmed people were killed that there was no defense whatsoever and the loonie with the gun could keep on shooting people. We had it years ago in Port Arthur in Tasmania where no-one could shoot back. massacres at US schools with the same problem, vulnerable people completely undefended by the society that is supposed to protect them. What is the point of banning guns when in many societies that have done so, the massacres still occur ?
The people who commit these atrocities are not heros, they are cowards killing innocent people because the targets cannot defend themselves, they don't go rushing in to places where they can be killed themselves. We had one in the western suburbs of Sydney over 10 years ago in Strathfield, the guys name was Wade Frankum and after hearing the interview with his counsellor the spoonerism "Frayed Wankum" cam very close to the mark.
There is something blatantly wrong with the view that if you keep banning guns over and over again that the problem will go away, it hasn't, the murder rates have not dropped over the years they have been in force and with a disarmed society it remains vulnerable to loonie that will get a gun one way or another.
Quote from: Bill Cravener on July 24, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
When you give it any thought this loony was dressed as an officer. Now lets say there was a security guard there I bet the first thing that nut would have done was to walk up to that security guy and blow his brains out first thing.
I just wonder, you guys who think we should all be armed have you ever even fired a weapon before? For that matter have you ever kill a living thing with one? I doubt it!
Actually I have. Fired hundreds of thousands of different types of rounds. When you have a human locked down your sights, it is, shall we say a cool and powerful feeling. Fired at a human? Yes I have, killed anyone.. I won't answer that one.
I do agree with you Bill, if you are going to get a permit you should HAVE TO take a safety course, and maybe some shooting practice before you get a permit. Shooting at something accurately, takes not only skill but experience.. muscle memory...
I can picture a looney in Times Square... a round is fired, and from inexperience and no training you have 100's of people shooting. Happens with cops, a round is fired and you get 3 cops emptying their clips... Never really understood that, well except for too little training... It became second nature with all the range time we got... double tap to center mass, and then head shot if neccessary... not emptying a clip...
Gun control? I can't stand those words... that only hurts the LAW ABIDING SANE people... criminals will still get their hands on a gun. Here in NYC it is next to impossible to get a pistol permit... but yet there is more and more gun fire from ILLEGAL guns... nothing any law can do about that...
Quote from: Gunner on July 24, 2011, 03:09:39 PM
I do agree with you Bill, if you are going to get a permit you should HAVE TO take a safety course, and maybe some shooting practice before you get a permit. Shooting at something accurately, takes not only skill but experience.. muscle memory...
I can picture a looney in Times Square... a round is fired, and from inexperience and no training you have 100's of people shooting. Happens with cops, a round is fired and you get 3 cops emptying their clips... Never really understood that, well except for too little training... It became second nature with all the range time we got... double tap to center mass, and then head shot if neccessary... not emptying a clip...
My point exactly! You know Gunner I've been an avid hunter since I was 12 years old. I remember once being all excited when a young teen and shooting a pheasant when the law only allowed you to shoot the male ringneck. My father slapped me a side the head and nearly knocked me on my ass for doing so. I learned a lesson that day and that is make sure what it is you're shooting at.
Later in life I once gut shot a 6 point buck and I and my buddies spent over two hours following its blood trail until we came upon it. It was on the ground bleeding to death and crying just like a baby human would in severe pain. It was disturbing to say the least and from that day on I would never take the shot unless I was certain the animal was close enough that my shot was on target so the animal would not suffer. You have my utmost respect Gunner, I could not imagine shooting another human being but when you are in combat its either you or them.
Of course only real experience can actually tell whether it works or not, but in my opinion, if you give citizens right to carry a gun. It takes away many qualities:
1: You can't really trust anyone, do you dare say anything rude to a man carrying a gun?
2: The society will be filled with fear all the time, fear is not a good quality
3: People of low impulse control is a serious problem, and there are many people who "suffer" low impulse control
4: If a man is not suited to carry a gun, it would be ridiculously easy for him to steal a gun from a random citizen who happens to carry a gun
5: It won't actually reduce mass murder, it will instead intrigue to better planning and perhaps have even more devastating effect
6: Police will have less power, which I guess can be both good and bad, more bad than good
7: If we resort to solving the problems of society by allowing people to carry guns, how should we solve other problems in similar areas? :P
Quote from: Magnum on July 24, 2011, 01:39:33 AM
Like you said, one responsible person with a gun would have finished him off early on.
Quote from: MichaelW on July 24, 2011, 04:06:57 AM
For almost every one of these massacres one armed and competent person could have prevented many deaths.
Where are all the competent people these days :lol.... I know so many people with a public and private face.... Even the people deemed 'competant' by 'the powers that be' at the cutting edge of society turn out to be complete nutcases.... A certain astronaut springs to mind however I can think of many others.... Is it 1 in 4 people have a *diagnosed* mental condition at some point in their lives? How many are never diagnosed? Certainly I do not know one asm programmer who isnt clinically insane and some obviously carry guns :lol....
Those who profess their competancy and sanity are generally the most insane by observation.... Because the believe wholeheartedly that they are something they can, with their own limited perspectives, only define relatively on many varying disparate aspects, that they can not define ::)....
I say.... Give everyone a rocket launcher.... Then.... Even the competant people with bad aim, the old and the invalided can protect the innocent civilians from the disparate evil people....
Also I think there should be more (non metalic cos of the MRI scanner (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2194395/mri_scan_accident/)) guns in hospitals and give the security guard gunmen doctorates and on site forensic analysis training.... Recently there has been another psychotic nurse contaminating people's drips here in the UK....
Oh yeah..... Maybe also give all kiddy script programmers training in advanced viral techniques just in case one of the monkeys at typewriters accidently creates an advanced AI client that decides to wipe out the human race....
Without this common sense we have
no chance to fight back!!!!
Just in case anyone has any illusions as to how sane the human race is....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbsgHbXubGU&feature=topvideos_entertainment
Posted the day before the Norway tradegy (5 days ago) and ONLY 3 million hits on this video....
(Just a random link a friend sent me)
I mean this video is sooo awesome..... I never knew a gun could do that, who would have thought!!!!
"I dont know if you noticed but one of those incendary rounds exploded 2 feet away from me.... That's how you know this is a good video"
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2JgXf7QOOsU/TTezNk_qzQI/AAAAAAAAAA0/dlMxUJTyHmc/s1600/WE-NEED-YOU.jpg)
NO ONE NEEDS a hand gun that shoots that many rounds,except the militery perhaps.
A normal automatic clip holds at most 9 to 11 rounds..more than enough for a normal person to protect themselves.
Quote from: oex on July 26, 2011, 09:15:31 PM
I mean this video is sooo awesome..... I never knew a gun could do that, who would have thought!!!!
Those look more like a mag full of tracer rounds. Didn't know a gun could do that? Ammo for the .50 cal I used was armor piercing incendiary... had this really pointy titanium thingy about an inch long, in front of that was some phosphorus and a small cap (I think) all wrapped in a copper jacket. Once it hit something, it would spark up the phos and the titanium would drag it into the object and burn it to crap, and they would explode a bit.... that titanium besides going into tanks and planes, would go clear though a house!! Now those were fun!!! :bg
I just don't get it, that young fellow in that video must have more money then sense to waste all that ammo shooting at pop bottles and water. I guess what ever rattles your bones. For me that's just a boring waste of cash and bullets. Now when I was a might younger I lived in the country with a dairy farm on each side of me. The farm owners would pay me $10 bucks for every groundhog tail I delivered to them. You'd leave the dead carcass in the hog's hole so another hog wouldn't move in. Cattle farmers despise groundhogs because their dairy cattle would step in a hogs burro and break a leg. The farmer then had to put the cow down. Back then I had a Remington 257 Roberts bolt action with 9 power adjustable scope and tripod. Out the muzzle came a 100 grain bullet at speeds of 3,000 fps. It had a zero drop at 200 yards and 7 inch drop at 300 yards. Now to me, that is what I call fun, popping the heads off of groundhogs at two to three hundred yards!
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/GROUNDHOG.jpg)
you should look at some of his other videos
that guy seems to have unlimited access to a firearm museum or something - and a lot of money
when i was in the army, i had a cap and ball .36 cal pistol that i used for plinking
it was even cheaper than firing a .22 :bg
(http://picturearchive.auctionarms.com/4539074207/8379855/de7a235b11debf6c0bc1371d47d398a3.jpg)
Nice! Is that a replica Dave, I mean is that something one can buy inexpensively?
By the way, I would still spend my weekends getting rid of them hogs but at 2 to 3 hundred yards I had to give it up cause my eyes started giving out. Getting old sucks! :(
well - back then, i bought it used for $75 - sold it for the same price
it is a replica of the 1851 Colt Navy revolver
if you look around, they are available for ~$150
if you have never played with black powder stuff, i will give you a heads up
1) you have to clean the gun rather frequently (basic cleaning every 20 rounds or so)
2) you hand-load each round :P
with that particular gun, i could use 1-1/2 load (powder) for better accuracy
could not use a double load, as the cylinder wasn't deep enough
i also played with .50 cal black powder rifles - a lot of fun
The Vikings believed that a person that cannot defend himself cannot really be free.
I agree with the Vikings. A population of unarmed people is always at the mercy of whoever have the weapons.
Quote from: xanatose on July 28, 2011, 09:40:34 PM
A population of unarmed people is always at the mercy of whoever have the weapons.
In Europe, that is the police, and almost nobody else (oh yes, I forgot, the Swiss are armed: they have a rifle in their wardrobe - if they are caught carrying that thing in public, somebody will call the guys with the straightjackets :green)
In the U.S., every moron may have a handgun hidden under his waist coat. I visit the U.S. occasionally simply because I have to, for professional reasons, but I would never ever send my kids to study over there (or to Caracas or Nairobi, for the same reason). The statistics speak a clear language.
Interestingly enough the Swiss model is an interesting one, bust into a house there and you may end up in deep sh*t (read SHOT) but don't go running around the streets carrying a weapon and you will be seen as dangerous and stopped.
This disaster in Norway puts paid to the notion that only a police force should be armed, he was dressed as a policeman and people trusted him right up to when he shot them. It would have taken only one armed guard to have stopped this tragedy but with such power concentrated in the police, there was no alternative and so many people died due to one loonie who was armed.
I personally don't like a society where many people are floating around with hand guns as it leads to abuses but a disarmed society is vulnerable to any loonie that can get a gun and over and over again, this is what happens in disarmed societies. Port Arthur in Tasmania, US schools, UK universities etc etc .... and all of them could have been stopped by one armed security person.
Quote from: hutch-- on July 29, 2011, 12:18:07 AM
Interestingly enough the Swiss model is an interesting one, bust into a house there and you may end up in deep sh*t (read SHOT) but don't go running around the streets carrying a weapon and you will be seen as dangerous and stopped.
With modern technology, no problem: Disable the weapon if it is more than a hundred yards away from an encrypted sender that is fixed inside the house.
QuoteThis disaster in Norway puts paid to the notion that only a police force should be armed, he was dressed as a policeman and people trusted him right up to when he shot them. It would have taken only one armed guard to have stopped this tragedy
Really? They did have a guard (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/norway-attack-victim-saved-son):
QuoteTrond Berntsen was working as an off-duty police officer on Utøya when Anders Behring Breivik arrived at the shore. Unarmed and unaware of the horror that was about to be unleashed on the island, Berntsen succeeded in protecting his 10-year-old son but could do nothing to save himself. The father-of-two became one of Breivik's first victims when he was shot dead within minutes.
And of course, if Trond Berntsen had had a gun, he would have been
the first victim, not "one of the first".
By the way, the policemen were armed when they arrived. Unfortunately they arrived a bit late.
Now spinning this further, of course they could have armed all 100+ participants of the summer camp - teabaggers, here is an idea for you!! If those youngsters had been systematically trained on hand weapons, one of them would surely have shot that fascist moron. The problem is that Europe does not yet known those funny headlines "boy shoots daddy, accidentally", and it might be politically incorrect to suggest arming kids. At least here in Europe.
JJ,
The real strength of the Swiss model is the people who have firearms know enough about them not to abuse them where disarmed societies tend to have the atrocities that we keep hearing about. Even the schools in the US were easy pickings for the odd loonie that could come in with a gun and there was no-one to stop them. The problem with your suggestion is that an enemy could use the restriction technology to cripple the defensive capacity or even worse, if the batteries went flat they could not defend themselves either.
While I do support restrictions on hand guns, full sized rifles are very hard to conceal and if a loonie start running around shooting unarmed people, one person who does not have to conceal their rifle would solve the problem.
I can think of a funny story here from some years ago, some guy tried to hyjack a plane in Broken Hill, was making demands to see the prime minister and was threatening the pilot and crew on the tarmac. An old Copper picked up a 303 and shot the guy in the head through the cockpit window, end of story. :bdg