PDA

View Full Version : Norway shootings, and how guns can save lives


Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 11:48 AM
I've noticed that the forum has been (understandably) quiet about the horrific events in Norway last week. And understandably so, because we know what the antis are going to do with this. Every time a nation has enacted more restrictive gun laws, even to the point of confiscating firearms, it has been in response to a nutter committing a massacre. I don't need to list the nations and the precipitating events.

However. Here's something that nobody has pointed out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/norway-attack-victim-saved-son

Trond Berntsen was working as an off-duty police officer on Ut°ya 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.

...the royal court has announced that the 51-year-old was the stepbrother of Mette-Marit, Norway's crown princess.


This has to raise the question -- where was his service sidearm???

What? They don't carry one off duty? Maybe they will in the future. There are evil people everywhere on the planet, not just in the American Wild West that Europeans like to mock.

Guns can save lives as readily as they can take them -- but ya gots ta carry one to have one when you need one.

gose
07-25-2011, 12:06 PM
This has to raise the question -- where was his service sidearm???
What? They don't carry one off duty? Maybe they will in the future.

Not really, since the vast majority of cops in Norway dont even carry on duty. Their service guns are locked up in the trunk of their squad cars.

gadjeep
07-25-2011, 12:07 PM
The only thing that beats bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

How about the outdoor leadership class in Talkeetna AK that got mauled by a bear over the weekend? Tell Mr that a responsible, proficient, ARMED adult wouldn't have come in handy.

Briancnelson
07-25-2011, 12:17 PM
No, its an excellent example.

Yes, he's a crazy person. But he'd have been a very dead crazy person if he'd started shooting any the adults on the island had guns. One gun and a person with the will to use it could have saved 50-60 lives.

Same with Loughner. One person in that crowd has a gun, and maybe noone but the Congresswoman gets shot. Still a tragedy, but not nearly as awful.

Crazy people happen. Crazy people will get guns whether or not they are legal, as shown in Norway.

There is no clearer argument for the 2nd Amendment.

a1c
07-25-2011, 12:18 PM
Most Norwegian cops don't carry even on duty. This may get Norwegians to rethink that policy, but this remains a bit of a freak case. I wouldn't use this as a pro-2A argument. This is another country, with its own set of cultural, political and historical references.

Make it a pro-2A argument, and the antis will just as easily point out that the guy shouldn't have had access to firearms, making a case for even stricter gun control. You're preaching to the choir, but not converting anybody.

Schrodinger's Cat
07-25-2011, 12:22 PM
I wouldn't use it pro-2A as much as I would use it anti gun control. (Wait..same thing?) Norway has incredibly strict gun laws. Didn't stop this guy. His guns weren't even evil!

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:23 PM
Not really, since the vast majority of cops in Norway dont even carry on duty. Their service guns are locked up in the trunk of their squad cars.

Suspected as much.

That may now change.

Do London cops still go around unarmed?

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:26 PM
The only thing that beats bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

How about the outdoor leadership class in Talkeetna AK that got mauled by a bear over the weekend? Tell Mr that a responsible, proficient, ARMED adult wouldn't have come in handy.

I saw that.

What kind of maroon goes out into the boonies armed only with a club? (Old Schecky Greene routine -- "I killed a bear with my club. There's forty guys in my club"). The natives know better -- from bitter experience -- not to do that.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:29 PM
You're preaching to the choir, but not converting anybody.

Me? Preaching? No. Just pointing out (for the choir) something that hasn't been pointed out yet.

Opinions on guns are as cemented as opinions on all the other hot-button topics today. It is impossible to change a person's viewpoint on these by argument or debate.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-25-2011, 12:30 PM
Have they ever mentioned what kind of guns he used? I know it is morbid, but I am dreading what kind of hay the other side will make of it if they were anything other than plain old hunting arms. It is messed up, but you know that is what they will do.

-Mb

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:37 PM
Crazy people happen. Crazy people will get guns whether or not they are legal, as shown in Norway.

There is no clearer argument for the 2nd Amendment.


Is one allowed to bring up the argument that crazy people shouldn't be allowed... period?

You know what the maximum sentence for this guy is in Norway? 21 years.

In the universe of yours truly, Genghis Wernher the Most Merciful, he gets stood against a wall sometime next week. On live TV. And no, he doesn't get to dress up in his comic-opera emperor's uniform. But that would never happen in the present kinder, gentler, more enlightened Greater Unified Europe. "Oh, no, we can't do that, it will make him a martyr." Fine. It might flush out the rest of his loonytunes buddies.

We put down mad dogs because it's too much trouble to keep them alive. But mad humans, well, we try drugs, therapy, counseling, electroshock... you name it, and at the end you still don't know if they're going to go off at the worst possible time -- again.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 12:39 PM
Have they ever mentioned what kind of guns he used? I know it is morbid, but I am dreading what kind of hay the other side will make of it if they were anything other than plain old hunting arms. It is messed up, but you know that is what they will do.

-Mb

Yes. It has been mentioned. I don't want to mention it here for the reasons you state.

The rifle was nothing special.

dantodd
07-25-2011, 1:06 PM
Most Norwegian cops don't carry even on duty. This may get Norwegians to rethink that policy, but this remains a bit of a freak case. I wouldn't use this as a pro-2A argument. This is another country, with its own set of cultural, political and historical references.

Make it a pro-2A argument, and the antis will just as easily point out that the guy shouldn't have had access to firearms, making a case for even stricter gun control. You're preaching to the choir, but not converting anybody.

This. While a well armed citizenry may well have limited the damage in this specific incident it is not worth trying to extend this to why we need a stronger 2A in the U.S. The fallacy in doing that is about the same as the fallacy of trying to say that this incident proves that all anti-immigration folks are terrorists.

RRangel
07-25-2011, 1:10 PM
What? They don't carry one off duty? Maybe they will in the future. There are evil people everywhere on the planet, not just in the American Wild West that Europeans like to mock.

Guns can save lives as readily as they can take them -- but ya gots ta carry one to have one when you need one.

Not only was he not armed. Police are not generally armed in Norway. This is the norm and it would be considered abnormal otherwise. Now you know why such criminals are so brazen.

Briancnelson
07-25-2011, 1:37 PM
Am I the only one who finds the idea that because the other side will find something to nitpick in it, or will have their own spin on events, we should never point out how free access to arms by responsible citizens could avert tragedies sort of backward?

It's this fear to confront the anti's and this worry about what they might say that frankly lead to where gun rights are today. In more recent years, as that was put aside, and people realized they needed to fight urgently and with no holds barred for our rights, or lose them, we have made more progress.

A more clearcut case of why a free citizen should have the right to bear arms at all times and defend themselves, and cannot rely on the state to do so, cannot be imagined.

If that's not a teaching moment, I don't know what will satisfy your overly picky set of criteria. Does it have to happen here to count? Does it have to be some mythical perfect set of events that will never happen, so there is no possible criticism from the anti's?

Won't happen. Use the ammunition you are given.

jwkincal
07-25-2011, 2:26 PM
We have cast our struggle as a battle for basic human rights. It is absolutely imperative that we hold the ethical high ground at all times.

To exploit the deaths of so many innocent people and attempt to manipulate the emotions of a public which has been agitated by this event does not qualify as ethical.

We'll never win the battle we have chosen with a "no holds barred" strategy. It is my fervent hope that our struggle never becomes one which requires that approach, because that will mean that we lost many earlier battles due to poor choices and lack of focus.

J.D.Allen
07-25-2011, 3:11 PM
Has it been reported what type of weapon, or weapons he used? Or if they were legally or illegally obtained?

nicki
07-25-2011, 3:20 PM
First I want to state that what this guy did was absolutely horrible, I am not justifying his actions, rather what I am doing is taking a "Cold view" of what he did based on what we know so far.

I want to state that I hope I am WRONG on my assessment, because if I am not, many more people will die.

This guy was not like "Loughner". He isn't crazy, he knew exactly what he was doing and this was planned out.

In his mind, he is a "Patriot", he is trying to save his country and he did what he felt was necessary because "Norway" is going the wrong way.

A true Patriot will stand up to their government when they belief that their government is destructive to the survival of their country.

In his mind, he viewed government policies as destructive to Norway which is probably why he targeted the government buildings.

The summer camp he targeted wasn't just a summer camp, it was a youth retreat for the Labor party and what he did was targeted the labor party where they would hurt the most, their children.

This was a massive politically motivated attack on the Political Left of Europe and I have a gut feeling that Leftists leaders already have come to that conclusion and they are probably scared ****less.

Things are not so happy in Europe, a small but growing number of Europeans are concerned about the rise in the Islamic population, the reality is Europeans are becoming minorities in their own countries.

The reality is "Sharia Law" and "European Culture" are not compatible and the "Liberal Europeans" are in for a "rude awakening" if current popultaion trends continue.

His real goal was not to kill children, it was to start a "Revolution".

Unlike Timothy McVeigh, he didn' t try to get out of town, he stayed there to the police came and surrendered and now he wants to tell the world what he did and why.

Where McVeigh's lawyers wanted to stall, this guy is going to push and push.

Since McVeigh tried to claim he wasn't responsible for the Oklahoma city bombing, he lost his "bully puppet". This guy is very different.

In his mind, he has already had a substantial victory because he has got the attention of everyone not only in Norway, but all of Europe and the rest of the world.

The courts will become his "bully pulpit" and if this guy has any public speaking ability, the net effect is that he will spark other attacks across Europe.

Nicki

jwkincal
07-25-2011, 3:40 PM
If he had any speaking ability he wouldn't have been by himself for the attack.

CalBear
07-25-2011, 3:59 PM
Sure crazy happens, but how do deal with it? Guns aren't even half of the danger these days. We've got to deal with thugs on the streets, rapists, kidnappings, bombs, knife attacks, etc... Why do people even bother focusing on guns. A vigilant, alert and prepared citizenry is so valuable today.

Most people focus on why the person attacked and what they used to carry out the attack. With Norway, for instance, the focus is on extremist ideology, guns and bombs -- the why and the what are being scrutinized. By I tend to focus on another why: why could nobody stop him? I think that's a far more important question.

This wasn't a quick explosion. It wasn't Jared Laughner getting off a lot of shots quickly -- it was a calculated, slow, cold blooded string of murders. The closest thing I can think of is VT. The common theme between this and the VT massacre are gun free zones. VT was explicitly gun free, and Norway was effectively gun free. This was another major lapse in security. I can't really blame Norway, because the history of this sort of tragedy is very limited there, but I hope they'll wake up like Israel did and take real measures to improve citizen preparedness.

G60
07-25-2011, 4:26 PM
Has it been reported what type of weapon, or weapons he used? Or if they were legally or illegally obtained?

Mini 14 and a glock 17, both legally obtained.

J.D.Allen
07-25-2011, 4:39 PM
Mini 14 and a glock 17, both legally obtained.

Wow. What do you want to bet it's going to get a lot harder to obtain those weapons legally now?

CCWFacts
07-25-2011, 4:40 PM
Unfortunately this incident will lead to a major tightening of Scandinavia's fairly liberal gun laws, when the right answer would have been to have CCWers there. Israel went through the same thing. In the early days it was a Socialist country with no one allowed to carry guns. After some incidents of mass-murders they finally decided, responsible people need to be carrying guns.

The way I look at this is, sometimes people do horrible things. You can try to prevent it as much as possible, but some things will still happen. The wrong thing to do is to overreact. Life has horrible and tragic turns sometimes.

Here's a few articles on gun control in Norway in light of this incident:


Guns common in Norway but violence is rare (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/guns-common-norway-gun-violence-rare)
Less restrictive gun laws wouldn't have prevented it (http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/07/25/less-restrictive-gun-control-laws-would-not-have-stopped-the-oslo-massacre/) - at least I like the way that one is framed!
Norway has tough gun laws but they are easy to circumvent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented)


Obviously there isn't a clear message or conclusion here, which is good. Compare that to the UK or Australia where mass-murder incidents resulted in immediate sweeping gun bans with near-universal agreement.

Sullivan76
07-25-2011, 4:44 PM
Apparently this guy didn't spend enough time on the internet to realize how inaccurate a mini-14 is.

NoJoke
07-25-2011, 5:00 PM
IMHO This is a really poor example to use in the 2A political forum as a reason to carry a gun. A crazy person is just that a crazy person. Whether others were armed or not this person was set to kill as many people as he could. With that many people around and with the situation they were in, while someone may have stopped him earlier, many would still be dead.

This is no different that what Loughner did but on a larger scale. Like i said not a great political tool either way.


Excuse me, but WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!
A nut case lunatic is EXACTLY why MOST people WOULD carry...isn't it?

Mikeb
07-25-2011, 5:12 PM
The thing that gets me is the guy had 1 1/2 hours to commit his crime before anyone showed up that could challenge him.
not to make light it was "fish in a barrel"
Mike

Mstrty
07-25-2011, 5:20 PM
Situations like the one in Norway only ever end in one of 4 ways.

1) Gunman runs out of ammo
2) Gunman kills himself
3) Gun malfunctions and gives victims a chance to flee or subdue gunman.
4) Another Gun shows up.

KWB977
07-25-2011, 5:27 PM
Not really, since the vast majority of cops in Norway dont even carry on duty. Their service guns are locked up in the trunk of their squad cars.


wow...... well maybe they will change this policy. I also read the response time was horribly long.

CalBear
07-25-2011, 5:33 PM
You need to read in context better!!

All i am saying is that this incident should not be used to further the 2A agenda IE: using this as a political tool!

It is simply a tragedy committed by one who should have been watched more closely. I just read that even his father thought he was nuts and cut ties with him 16 years ago.

2A advocates do NOT use these events to push political agendas like the Bradys do.
We certainly shouldn't make it a poster child. We complain about tragedies being exploited when the Brady Bunch use them, so we should refrain from using them to push our beliefs. That said, there's nothing wrong with analyzing what went wrong. In this type of incident (and similar ones, like VT), I think it's quite appropriate to look at things like police response time, lack of security, no guns in civilian hands, etc. Those things played a major role. When a man is able to slaughter almost a hundred people over 1.5 hours, something is clearly wrong. Defenseless doesn't even begin to describe this situation.

Briancnelson
07-25-2011, 5:51 PM
By definition, any event in which many people die because no sane citizen was armed will be a tragedy. If we are never allowed to point to any of them as an example because of some misplaced sense of "dignity", what are we supposed to tell people?

People want concrete examples of why we need guns. This is it. Every time citizens are not allowed a gun in a situation like this, lots of people will die. That point will hit home to people.

The other side isn't going to stop publicizing the fact the bad guy has a gun, why should we fail to point out the other side?

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 5:51 PM
If he had any speaking ability he wouldn't have been by himself for the attack.

Outstanding point.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 5:55 PM
Apparently this guy didn't spend enough time on the internet to realize how inaccurate a mini-14 is.

???

Not clear on concept of "massacre"?

jonnietyler
07-25-2011, 6:06 PM
Situations like the one in Norway only ever end in one of 4 ways.

1) Gunman runs out of ammo
2) Gunman kills himself
3) Gun malfunctions and gives victims a chance to flee or subdue gunman.
4) Another Gun shows up.

How about option #5: victims rush attacker, some get shot during charge, but still subdue the attacker.

I remember this actually happened in one of the US school shootings. Kid on the wrestling team took down the shooter and got shot in the hand.

CCWFacts
07-25-2011, 6:19 PM
If you want to get really angry about something in Norway, it's that the maximum possible sentence this monster will get is 21 years (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/25/calls-reportedly-grow-in-norway-to-extend-maximum-penalty-after-twin-attacks/). He's going to spend 100 days in prison per murder victim. He will be 53 when he gets out, still young enough to enjoy life, perhaps even have a family, and also to still be extremely dangerous.

I hope Norway focuses on that legal aspect, not the guns issue, although I do hope they will start having their police armed. Apparently they are one of the few countries in Western Europe where the police are not allowed to carry guns, and that contributed very significantly to the death toll. This monster was free to execute children on the island for hours before they could get some response. Anyone there with a hunting rifle could have stopped it and saved dozens of lives.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 6:31 PM
If you want to get really angry about something in Norway, it's that the maximum possible sentence this monster will get is 21 years (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/25/calls-reportedly-grow-in-norway-to-extend-maximum-penalty-after-twin-attacks/). He's going to spend 100 days in prison per murder victim. He will be 53 when he gets out, still young enough to enjoy life, perhaps even have a family, and also to still be extremely dangerous.

In a perfect world, he would suffer an accident...

In an imperfect world, he would serve his 21 years, be released, and be given a new identity so he wouldn't suffer an accident...

Mustn't allow one's civil rights to be violated, now...

AJAX22
07-25-2011, 8:04 PM
I haven't had the time to read all of his manifesto, I will try to allocate a bit of time over the next few weeks....

From what I can gather so far, he is highly intelligent, organized, well read, good looking, and meticulous.

If he is well spoken he may well serve as an inspirational figure for a neo-nationalist movement in europe.....

You have to remember, Hitler was tried for Treason in 1928.... a crime that potentially carried the death penalty in germany... and was only sentenced to 5 years in prison (of which he served 8 months)

Everything this man has done has been calculated....

I suspect he will write a book while in prison, and I expect that book will inspire others to continue on his work...

My gut feeling is that this is not over, not by a long shot.

Its a disturbing prospect

1911su16b870
07-25-2011, 9:02 PM
Some of his writings are beginning to surface. The real scary part is how calculated he was all along the way.

Every time psychopaths are confronted by sheepdogs (with teeth), the killing of innocents stops.

AJAX22
07-25-2011, 9:09 PM
Some of his writings are beginning to surface. The real scary part is how calculated he was all along the way.

Every time psychopaths are confronted by sheepdogs (with teeth), the killing of innocents stops.

The reports seem to indicate that he just ran out of ammo... the teeth didn't really play into it much.

BigDogatPlay
07-25-2011, 10:02 PM
Every time psychopaths are confronted by sheepdogs (with teeth), the killing of innocents stops.

^^^This^^^

The one thing that mass shooters are, ahead of even being lunatics like this yayhoo is, would be that they are rank cowards. This clown Breivik stopped shooting because he ran out of ammo. But since it took Norwegian police 90 minutes to get to the island (their air assets were on vacation and hence unavailable) there wasn't much else that could happen.

By contrast, what has been seen in many other mass shooter incidents is that perpetrators have shot themselves or given up meekly when confronted or when alerted to the impending presence of police within their immediate area.

This is why the solution and doctrine on active shooters is now to engage them, not sit back, secure the perimeter and wait for SWAT.

ETA: From having travelled to Norway and spoken to fellow LEOs there.... like the UK the majority of officers do not routinely go armed. This is particularly true in the outlying and rural areas where populations are sparse and not much goes on. They all have access to firearms, are trained and have to demonstrate proficiency. In the urban areas there are armed response units, similar to those in the UK, which are fully strapped at all times. Some of these officers were photographed in the aftermath of the Oslo bombing giving aid to victims as some of the first responders on scene.

G60
07-25-2011, 10:58 PM
The reports seem to indicate that he just ran out of ammo... the teeth didn't really play into it much.

Which reports are 'these'?

"Despite suggestions that Breivik had run out of ammunition, police said they had found plenty when they arrested him."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/norway-killer-anders-behring-breivik-facing-only-21-year-term/story-e6frg6so-1226101577120

Everything else I've seen says he still had ammo on him when he surrendered.

Very hard to google though as search results are polluted with 'dum dum bullets designed to explode in the body" nonsense.

shermanatortank
07-25-2011, 11:50 PM
We all can't help but think about the "what ifs" regarding CCW and such. Nonetheless, a very tragic situation that nobody at a youth camp should have to worry about preparing for. I can only imagine the psychological harm this murderer put on the witnesses, young and old alike, as well as the first responders to the carnage.

Buckeye Dan
07-26-2011, 12:53 AM
Without reading each post I was wondering if anyone had pointed out that "most" Europeans DO NOT have the basic human right to self defense.

Norway has privately owned firearms. The presence of which would have been irrelevant. Violence in any form is prohibited. The use of any force to stop the gunman would have resulted in both criminal and civil consequences.

The people are literally conditioned to be sheep. They lack the proper training and would only complicate the process. Law enforcement and the military are the only entities qualified and authorized to handle these types of situations.

Dreaded Claymore
07-26-2011, 12:56 AM
Apparently this guy didn't spend enough time on the internet to realize how inaccurate a mini-14 is.

I feel ashamed of myself for laughing at that joke in the midst of this tragedy.

I haven't had the time to read all of his manifesto, I will try to allocate a bit of time over the next few weeks....

From what I can gather so far, he is highly intelligent, organized, well read, good looking, and meticulous.

If he is well spoken he may well serve as an inspirational figure for a neo-nationalist movement in europe.....

You have to remember, Hitler was tried for Treason in 1928.... a crime that potentially carried the death penalty in germany... and was only sentenced to 5 years in prison (of which he served 8 months)

Everything this man has done has been calculated....

I suspect he will write a book while in prison, and I expect that book will inspire others to continue on his work...

My gut feeling is that this is not over, not by a long shot.

Its a disturbing prospect

I pray fervently that such a thing will not come to pass. That would be one of the worst things that could happen to our world right now. I hope enough people have learned the bloody lesson of fascist Europe and World War 2.

creekside
07-26-2011, 7:13 AM
Without reading each post I was wondering if anyone had pointed out that "most" Europeans DO NOT have are DENIED the basic human right to self defense.

Norway has privately owned firearms. The presence of which would have been irrelevant unless someone was willing to risk imprisonment to save many lives. Violence in any form is prohibited by law. The use of any force to stop the gunman would have resulted in both criminal and civil consequences.

The people are literally conditioned to be sheep. They lack the proper training unless they are former military service or acquire it on their ownand would only complicate the process by trying to save their own lives from a deadly threat. Law enforcement and the military are the only entities which consider themselvesqualified and authorized to handle these types of situations.

There, fixed it for you. No court can do to you what a .223 can.

NoJoke
07-26-2011, 7:31 AM
Wow, being a police officer in Oslo could be a death wish, as it was for the first victim. Police are unarmed and must obtain authority before retrieving their sidearm.

[]"“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.” [/B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/europe/26police.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

a1c
07-26-2011, 10:00 AM
Without reading each post I was wondering if anyone had pointed out that "most" Europeans DO NOT have the basic human right to self defense.

Norway has privately owned firearms. The presence of which would have been irrelevant. Violence in any form is prohibited. The use of any force to stop the gunman would have resulted in both criminal and civil consequences.

Unless you are an attorney with Norwegian credentials, you don't know that. Norway has strict gun control laws, but in a case of legitimate defense like what you are bringing up, I seriously doubt the guy shooting the madman would have been prosecuted.

I hear similar claims made all the time about California, and it's just as inaccurate and annoying.

1911RONIN
07-26-2011, 10:41 AM
First I want to state that what this guy did was absolutely horrible, I am not justifying his actions, rather what I am doing is taking a "Cold view" of what he did based on what we know so far.

I want to state that I hope I am WRONG on my assessment, because if I am not, many more people will die.

This guy was not like "Loughner". He isn't crazy, he knew exactly what he was doing and this was planned out.

In his mind, he is a "Patriot", he is trying to save his country and he did what he felt was necessary because "Norway" is going the wrong way.

A true Patriot will stand up to their government when they belief that their government is destructive to the survival of their country.

In his mind, he viewed government policies as destructive to Norway which is probably why he targeted the government buildings.

The summer camp he targeted wasn't just a summer camp, it was a youth retreat for the Labor party and what he did was targeted the labor party where they would hurt the most, their children.

This was a massive politically motivated attack on the Political Left of Europe and I have a gut feeling that Leftists leaders already have come to that conclusion and they are probably scared ****less.

Things are not so happy in Europe, a small but growing number of Europeans are concerned about the rise in the Islamic population, the reality is Europeans are becoming minorities in their own countries.

The reality is "Sharia Law" and "European Culture" are not compatible and the "Liberal Europeans" are in for a "rude awakening" if current popultaion trends continue.

His real goal was not to kill children, it was to start a "Revolution".

Unlike Timothy McVeigh, he didn' t try to get out of town, he stayed there to the police came and surrendered and now he wants to tell the world what he did and why.

Where McVeigh's lawyers wanted to stall, this guy is going to push and push.

Since McVeigh tried to claim he wasn't responsible for the Oklahoma city bombing, he lost his "bully puppet". This guy is very different.

In his mind, he has already had a substantial victory because he has got the attention of everyone not only in Norway, but all of Europe and the rest of the world.

The courts will become his "bully pulpit" and if this guy has any public speaking ability, the net effect is that he will spark other attacks across Europe.

Nicki

this.

there is little evidence this guy was crazy...in fact, his "paper trail" is incredibly lucid and coherent...

Coded-Dude
07-26-2011, 10:58 AM
Without reading each post I was wondering if anyone had pointed out that "most" Europeans DO NOT have the basic human right to self defense.

Norway has privately owned firearms. The presence of which would have been irrelevant. Violence in any form is prohibited. The use of any force to stop the gunman would have resulted in both criminal and civil consequences.

The people are literally conditioned to be sheep. They lack the proper training and would only complicate the process. Law enforcement and the military are the only entities qualified and authorized to handle these types of situations.

I routinely debate with a German fellow on another forum i frequent. He thinks we Americans are overzealous with our gun rights.

When I pointed out that if somebody on the island had been armed, there is a good chance that many lives would have been saved. His reply

It's always the same argument with "gun owners". Always. Even if guns were allowed, who's to say that a HOLIDAY CAMP would have them on site? It's not like everybody and his mother NEEDS one here anyways... We are damn well fine without guns! (sorry, but this angers me a bit).

To which I replied. Tell that to the 80+ victims and their families. Some people prefer to be sheep in a wolf ridden world.

a1c
07-26-2011, 11:08 AM
this.

there is little evidence this guy was crazy...in fact, his "paper trail" is incredibly lucid and coherent...

Psychopaths can be brilliant and perfectly coherent. That doesn't mean they're not "crazy", which is a rather vague term anyway.

Wernher von Browning
07-26-2011, 11:29 AM
I routinely debate with a German fellow on another forum i frequent. He thinks we Americans are overzealous with our gun rights.




That's funny.

I have clients in Germany. One day I told one "Well, I'm off to the range today..." He said "You Americans sure are a trigger-happy bunch, aren't ya?" I replied "Let me put it this way. My toy for today is a Mauser 98k. Brought back by a GI in 1945. So in the long run, who's been more trigger-happy?" :)

Yes, he's still a client.

I also have friends in Germany (older ones -- WW2 generation or just after) who rail about their silly gun rules. Like welding the sights on rifles so they're useless past 300 meters. Cutting off bayonet lugs. And I have friends over there who have Grandpa's Luger and hell no they're not going to report that or hand it over.

Despite the image we have over here of Europeans, esp. Brits, rolling over and complying with asinine laws, I think you can count on millions of firearms being kept, hidden, away from the grasping hands of officialdom. Numbers I've seen suggest that for every registered firearm in Germany, there are two more off the books.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany
The number of registered guns in Germany is reported to be 7,200,000
Unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Germany there are estimated to be 17,000,000

OK, more than 2:1.

Run that by your German friend and see what he says. And remember, Germans are conditioned to obey the laws -- if somebody gives an order, they by and large follow it (and this has gotten them into mondo trouble in the past...) How strong must their feelings, or suspicions about the laws, be, to make that many normally submissive people ignore the (rather draconian) gun registration laws?

Wernher von Browning
07-26-2011, 11:33 AM
Psychopaths can be brilliant and perfectly coherent. That doesn't mean they're not "crazy", which is a rather vague term anyway.

I think the standard for "not guilty by reason of insanity" in US courts is that the subject is not aware of his actions or their consequences. Or maybe it's "not able to assist in their own defense." I think that can be pretty well ruled out in this case. No idea what Norway's standards might be but I don't think any sort of "crazy" or "insanity" argument is going to carry any weight there.

a1c
07-26-2011, 11:35 AM
I think the standard for "not guilty by reason of insanity" in US courts is that the subject is not aware of his actions or their consequences. Or maybe it's "not able to assist in their own defense." I think that can be pretty well ruled out in this case. No idea what Norway's standards might be but I don't think any sort of "crazy" or "insanity" argument is going to carry any weight there.

You're right about the US definition of legal insanity. Given what we've heard so far, it sounds like the guy here would be found legally sane. Over there, I don't know. My guess is that he could very well find himself locked away in a mental hospital for a very long time.

1911RONIN
07-26-2011, 12:11 PM
Psychopaths can be brilliant and perfectly coherent. That doesn't mean they're not "crazy", which is a rather vague term anyway.

One mass killing is not the criteria for psychopathy in the DSM-IV or elsewhere. He is not clinically "crazy" based on what we have so far...though that may change.

Are we too afraid to believe that a rational, intelligent and mentally stable person might do this? Because "crazy" helps you to explain his actions does not mean that that is THE explanation for his actions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Diagnosis

Stonewalker
07-26-2011, 12:20 PM
One mass killing is not the criteria for psychopathy in the DSM-IV or elsewhere. He is not clinically "crazy" based on what we have so far...though that may change.

Are we too afraid to believe that a rational, intelligent and mentally stable person might do this? Because "crazy" helps you to explain his actions does not mean that that is THE explanation for his actions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Diagnosis

Yes. We have been shielded from life's harsh realities for too many generations to understand that taking life is part of life. Even animal life, people balk at the idea.

We live in such luxury that we don't literally have to defend our homes and families from bandits or worse.