• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosions In Norway

I raised this question

Not the laws on the books - but your new standard of only allowing a special people that you previously described to be armed to the teeth?


How do you apply a standard for that and keep from violating the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

the reply from Turtle

we already have laws that ban those who have criminal records or other disqualifying features from owning any sort of firearms
Click to expand...

Very good.

if you cannot own a firearm, you cannot lawfully carry one nor pass the additional screening almost every state imposes on those who wish to carry weapons
Click to expand...

Which leaves hundreds of millions who potentially can carry.

it is almost impossible to carry enough weapons concealed to be "armed to the teeth" one concealed handgun hardly invokes that sort of image
Click to expand...

You have done an excellent job turtle of educating folks here just how powerful and damaging one weapon can be in the hands of someone as highly trained and skilled as yourself. You have discussing being able to take out dozens of people if need be. I would say that qualifies in being armed to the teeth when you can dispatch several dozen people by your own admission with a single powerful weapon that you can carry.

so to me, if you can legally own weapons (ie you are an adult with no felony record, mental incompetence as determined by a court etc) and you have fulfilled the requirements to carry a weapon that is the proper process
Click to expand...

And so it would be under the law. And so it would apply to hundreds of millions of people who would meet that law and be able to publicly carry a weapon.

So now we are back to my question: is that the sort of society that we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society where that is the norm every day?
 
apdst said:
Compared to the disadvantages those campers faced??
Click to expand...

I am not comparing the two. In my earlier post I said that I agree with the opinion expressed by Turtle that this right wing zealot should have been much better taken out early in his evil game if someone had been able to do that. You will get no argument from me on that. Better he died in the first minute of this hellish onslaught than cause any further loss of innocent life. If someone put him on fire I would not urinate on his to douse his flames.
 
haymarket said:
I raised this question



the reply from Turtle



Very good.



Which leaves hundreds of millions who potentially can carry.



You have done an excellent job turtle of educating folks here just how powerful and damaging one weapon can be in the hands of someone as highly trained and skilled as yourself. You have discussing being able to take out dozens of people if need be. I would say that qualifies in being armed to the teeth when you can dispatch several dozen people by your own admission with a single powerful weapon that you can carry.



And so it would be under the law. And so it would apply to hundreds of millions of people who would meet that law and be able to publicly carry a weapon.

So now we are back to my question: is that the sort of society that we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society where that is the norm every day?
Click to expand...

doesn't bother me a bit. people who get CCW licenses have a far lower rate of misconduct with weapons than people who do not. You are much more likely in terms of percentages to be killed by malpractice or have your rights violated by rogue or corrupt cops than to be hurt by a citizen with a CCW
 
TurtleDude said:
doesn't bother me a bit. people who get CCW licenses have a far lower rate of misconduct with weapons than people who do not. You are much more likely in terms of percentages to be killed by malpractice or have your rights violated by rogue or corrupt cops than to be hurt by a citizen with a CCW
Click to expand...

You are not getting my point here. I am NOT arguing about the people who have a CCW. I am not arguing about you with your training and skill and your weapons.

What I am asking is this: every time an event like this happens, somebody says that its too bad someone there was not armed and could have killed the nut quickly and saved lots of lives. That was your opinion and I agreed with it 100%. So lets take this to its logical conclusion- these type of incident keep happening as they have in the past and even last night at the Texas roller rink with five dead.... maybe they get worse .... and more and more Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and carry in public.

Is that the type of society the Americna people want?

Or a better question: are there any important drawbacks or liabilities to a society like that?

I can freely admit the obvious benefit to a well armed society where lots of people carry in public - perhaps nearly everyone carries in public.

Can others admit any negative effects from such a policy in our society?
 
haymarket said:
I am not comparing the two. In my earlier post I said that I agree with the opinion expressed by Turtle that this right wing zealot should have been much better taken out early in his evil game if someone had been able to do that. You will get no argument from me on that. Better he died in the first minute of this hellish onslaught than cause any further loss of innocent life. If someone put him on fire I would not urinate on his to douse his flames.
Click to expand...

Just about the only way to do that would be to pump a couple of rounds into his ass, yet you oppose private ownership of firearms. You're contradicting yourself.
 
haymarket said:
You are not getting my point here. I am NOT arguing about the people who have a CCW. I am not arguing about you with your training and skill and your weapons.

What I am asking is this: every time an event like this happens, somebody says that its too bad someone there was not armed and could have killed the nut quickly and saved lots of lives. That was your opinion and I agreed with it 100%. So lets take this to its logical conclusion- these type of incident keep happening as they have in the past and even last night at the Texas roller rink with five dead.... maybe they get worse .... and more and more Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and carry in public.

Is that the type of society the Americna people want?

Or a better question: are there any important drawbacks or liabilities to a society like that?

I can freely admit the obvious benefit to a well armed society where lots of people carry in public - perhaps nearly everyone carries in public.

Can others admit any negative effects from such a policy in our society?
Click to expand...

There are going to be shortcomings, either way. Which approach has the lesser of the shortcomings?
 
apdst said:
Just about the only way to do that would be to pump a couple of rounds into his ass, yet you oppose private ownership of firearms. You're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Where do I oppose private ownership of firearms? I do not. I support the Second Amendment and have stated so many many times here.
 
haymarket said:
You are not getting my point here. I am NOT arguing about the people who have a CCW. I am not arguing about you with your training and skill and your weapons.

What I am asking is this: every time an event like this happens, somebody says that its too bad someone there was not armed and could have killed the nut quickly and saved lots of lives. That was your opinion and I agreed with it 100%. So lets take this to its logical conclusion- these type of incident keep happening as they have in the past and even last night at the Texas roller rink with five dead.... maybe they get worse .... and more and more Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and carry in public.

Is that the type of society the Americna people want?

Or a better question: are there any important drawbacks or liabilities to a society like that?

I can freely admit the obvious benefit to a well armed society where lots of people carry in public - perhaps nearly everyone carries in public.

Can others admit any negative effects from such a policy in our society?
Click to expand...

I don't see any drawbacks to having lots of well trained competent people owning and carrying weapons


the number of people who actually apply and carry weapons is a small number of those who can legally OWN weapons. yet if one out of ten people were armed and trained that would make these massacres far less successful
 
An armed parent could've shot Anders before he massacred the multitude.
 
haymarket said:
Where do I oppose private ownership of firearms? I do not. I support the Second Amendment and have stated so many many times here.
Click to expand...

Why decry the disadvantages of an armed society?
 
Polotick said:
What part of 'suppose' and 'what if' did you not understand? I would be happy to explain it for you.
Click to expand...

Just trying to be clear here. We do not remove the rights of others because some can come up with some what if's that they can't even show will be a problem.

Before you go off on an attack about me hating guns, I have owned guns since I was tall enough to keep both ends out of the dirt at the same time. In over 50 years of gun ownership I have pulled a gun exactly twice. On only one of those occasions did I have to point it at anybody.
Click to expand...

I care less if you hate guns or not. It's totally irrelevant.
 
apdst said:
Why decry the disadvantages of an armed society?
Click to expand...

such people tend to be less likely to cede their rights to a nanny government and are much more likely to kill criminals. either trait is upsetting to the far left
 
PeteEU said:
First link is a story from yesterday, a whole day before the official press conference about this..

Second link.. ALSO from yesterday.... a whole day before the official press conference.... hell it is the same bloody story from AP.

Here is a bit more uptodate information also from AP...

Timeline of Norway's bombing and shooting attacks - 7/24/2011 12:12:15 PM | Newser



That is 1 hour 1 min.

The only thing you can be critical about is the fact it took them 20 minutes to find boats to get to the island... it could have something to do with the boats being out fishing up people from the late at the time..

So again.. your so called facts are bull**** rumours from yesterday.
Click to expand...

Your link notes that the shooter had over 90 minutes to track these people down and shoot them.

Now what did I say?

1Perry said:
It's crazy that he was able to walk around the island for 90 minutes shooting people.
Click to expand...

Now what exactly is your complaint here? (also just so you can have something legit to complain about). I refuse to believe nobody was contacted for 40 minutes.
 
apdst said:
Why decry the disadvantages of an armed society?
Click to expand...

you seem to be confusing asking questions about what we want as a society with an honest discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the situation with taking only one side.

I realize it is far more convenient for some here to intentionally paint anyone who raises legitimate questions as the stereotype of the gun banning weapon hater. It makes some here more comfortable to paint others in that falsehood.

Subtleties, shades of grey and honest questions seem to throw some off a bit.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
so if a policeman or armed civilian had been able to shoot this scum bag early in his attack that would have been wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't see any need to clarify what I said. I think my meaning was clear to those who are not slaves to rigid literallity
 
I am a proponent of the 2nd ammendment. However I do not know of one act of terrorism such as this that was prevented by the Right to Bear Arms.
 
PeteEU said:
The police are holding a press conference as I write this. A few things...

1) they did not wait as you claim.. in fact your whole time line is wrong.
Click to expand...
They only got a call at 19:27, but that was nearly 30 minutes after it started and lots of twitter messages had come up. They shouldn't have to wait another 10 minutes. Your point that they were so confused that they had to wait 10 minutes more doesn't make sense. After what i heard it was really hard to contact the police, hence it took much longer.

2) From the first reports till he was arrested it took under an hour, this includes travel time for the special forces.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's horrible. They should have used 20 minutes after the call, not 1 hour. This is not an operation where they even needed special forces. It is one man, not a gang. 5 police men with guns will be able to take him down.

3) The police dont have transportation helicopters to transport the special forces... only the military has such helicopters.
Click to expand...
They should have helicopters to transport special forces. And they should have easy access to guns. It's not really debated now, but it is going to be a topic later, because if police used 20 minutes after the first call instead of 1 hour, a lot of lives could have been saved.
 
sangha said:
Pretty good. You should check out the murder rate for Norway and compare it to the US
Click to expand...

that makes much sense because Norway has exactly the same ethnic distributions in its population as the USA and the same history
 
Fuelrod said:
I am a proponent of the 2nd ammendment. However I do not know of one act of terrorism such as this that was prevented by the Right to Bear Arms.
Click to expand...

well in an active shooter case in Colorado (I believe) some nut case started shooting up a church and one of the parishioners-a lady security guard wounded the asswipe and he then blew his own brains out
 
In Norwegian society, Churches have no need for armed security guards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom