• 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

Nope, just the responsible people who know how to properly use weapons.

How do you then enforce your standard given that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon ?

from apdst

I would be happy to get rid of every gun in the world, if folks like Haymarket could promise that the government could totally remove all the scumbags from the public and insure that they would never be a threat to society, again.

Cannot do that. But that is not the issue since I do not want to get rid of every gun in the world as you state you do.
 
Last edited:
How did disarming the populace workout in Norway?

.... hunting is a national sport in Norway, which means.... many people have hunting rifles... so much for you disarming theory.
 
.... hunting is a national sport in Norway, which means.... many people have hunting rifles... so much for you disarming theory.

Single shot weapons, that have to be heavily registered, probably cost a fortune to own, so a minority of people can afford to own them and there's no doubt that it's illegal to carry a weapon on one's person, unless they're actually engaged in a hunt.

What about handguns? Are those legal? Can one get a concealed-carry permit in Norway? What's the rate of handgun ownership in Norway?
 
Oh it has? To what... raise the body count and make running a prison a $$$$$ cow?

In 1800's America, the carry rate was higher and the murder rate was lower, than it is now.
 
How do you then enforce your standard given that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon ?

from apdst




Cannot do that. But that is not the issue since I do not want to get rid of every gun in the world as you state you do.


wonder why "from apsdt" shows up.

we have laws. that is the best we can do, its like voting.
 
It's crazy that he was able to walk around the island for 90 minutes shooting people.

Lets see, the first report to the police came in at 5:25 Oslo time. At 5:35ish they requested help from Oslo. The Special Police arrived at 6:22ish and he was arrested 3 minutes later.

Oh and a police man was one of the first (if not the first) to be killed on the island.
 
I thought much the same thing. It would have been great in this instance if somebody had a gun and took out this jerk really early on. I don't think any rational person would prefer scores of innocent people dead rather than this one right wing extremist.

But lets then think through the implications of that for a moment. Yesterday in Texas somebody killed five innocent people at a roller skating rink because of a family dispute. Its getting very little media play as its just another mass gun killing and we all know where those stories end up anyways.

Do we want to live in society where the alternative to this sort of thing is everybody walks around armed to the teeth?

I am sure some here will answer loudly and proudly HELL YES. Is there not some other alternative? But think about it......... and then respond.



Here's the thing. Yeah a lot of people are going to Hell Yes this one. The cold hard facts are much different though. A great many people would never use a gun, even if they pulled it. Those have just armed their attacker.

Now, suppose you are a cop pulling up on a scene where two guys are blasting away at each other. What could possibly go wrong here?

What if you are in the process of defending yourself when some wild eyed idiot drives up who has been looking for a chance to shoot somebody?
 
wonder why "from apsdt" shows up.

we have laws. that is the best we can do, its like voting.

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?

my question to the board

So you would accept a society where everyone walks around armed to the teeth?


your reply
Nope, just the responsible people who know how to properly use weapons.

How do you apply a standard for that and keep from violating the Second Amendment?
 
Last edited:
This is so sad. These young people didnt stand a chance. He was hunting them down for 90 minutes. My thoughts and prayers are going out to the survivors and the victims family/friends.
 
Here's the thing. Yeah a lot of people are going to Hell Yes this one. The cold hard facts are much different though. A great many people would never use a gun, even if they pulled it. Those have just armed their attacker.

Now, suppose you are a cop pulling up on a scene where two guys are blasting away at each other. What could possibly go wrong here?

What if you are in the process of defending yourself when some wild eyed idiot drives up who has been looking for a chance to shoot somebody?

Those are very good points that show the disadvantages of an well armed society where people are carrying.
 
Lets see, the first report to the police came in at 5:25 Oslo time. At 5:35ish they requested help from Oslo. The Special Police arrived at 6:22ish and he was arrested 3 minutes later.

Oh and a police man was one of the first (if not the first) to be killed on the island.

Norway Police Arrived At Island Massacre 90 Minutes After Firing Began

Norway Police Arrived At Island Massacre 90 Minutes After Firing Began

Norway police admit to taking 90 minutes to reach island after shooting began

Norway police admit to taking 90 minutes to reach island after shooting began - The Globe and Mail
 
Here's the thing. Yeah a lot of people are going to Hell Yes this one. The cold hard facts are much different though. A great many people would never use a gun, even if they pulled it. Those have just armed their attacker.

Now, suppose you are a cop pulling up on a scene where two guys are blasting away at each other. What could possibly go wrong here?

What if you are in the process of defending yourself when some wild eyed idiot drives up who has been looking for a chance to shoot somebody?

Have any examples where this has happened?
 
Have any examples where this has happened?

What part of 'suppose' and 'what if' did you not understand? I would be happy to explain it for you.

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.
 
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?

my question to the board




your reply


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

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

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

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

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
 
Those are very good points that show the disadvantages of an well armed society where people are carrying.

the number of times that sort of scenario has caused a problem are how many?

versus the number of times lots of people die because none of the victims were armed
 
Norway Police Arrived At Island Massacre 90 Minutes After Firing Began

Norway Police Arrived At Island Massacre 90 Minutes After Firing Began

Norway police admit to taking 90 minutes to reach island after shooting began

Norway police admit to taking 90 minutes to reach island after shooting began - The Globe and Mail

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

_3:26 p.m.: A car bomb explodes outside the prime minister's office in central Oslo.

_Around 4:50 p.m.: Vacationers at a campground begin to hear shooting across the lake on Utoya, an island where the youth wing of the Labor Party is being held.

_5:26 p.m.: Police in Buskerud receive call about shooting on Utoya.

_5:30 p.m.: Buskerud police alert Oslo, request SWAT team.

_5:38 p.m.: SWAT team is dispatched from Oslo. It drives, deciding that starting a police helicopter would take longer.

_By 6 p.m.: The team arrives at the lake, but it struggles to find a boat to cross over.

_6:25 p.m.: The SWAT team arrives on the island.

_6:27 p.m.: Suspect puts down weapons and surrenders to police.

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.
 
the number of times that sort of scenario has caused a problem are how many?

versus the number of times lots of people die because none of the victims were armed

Both are undocumented, unfortunately.
 
Both are undocumented, unfortunately.

just about every mass shooting is proof of the latter

Va Tech Columbine, various "gun free malls, etc

Charles Whitman's massacre at Texas was interrupted when citizens with rifles showed up and started laying suppressive fire on the tower which let the police officer and an armed civilian to take him out
 
just about every mass shooting is proof of the latter

Va Tech Columbine, various "gun free malls, etc

Charles Whitman's massacre at Texas was interrupted when citizens with rifles showed up and started laying suppressive fire on the tower which let the police officer and an armed civilian to take him out

Sure, there will always be some known cases, but a real study would be impossible for any number of reasons. I think it would be interesting as hell to know the real numbers.
 
Those are very good points that show the disadvantages of an well armed society where people are carrying.

Compared to the disadvantages those campers faced??
 
Compared to the disadvantages those campers faced??

Well, you also have to wonder how it would alter the thought process if the attacker were to presume that the others were armed as well.
 
Sure, there will always be some known cases, but a real study would be impossible for any number of reasons. I think it would be interesting as hell to know the real numbers.

well that might be interesting but just about every retired cop I know (and that is a great deal) carries. Wonder why those who know the most about criminals carry weapons
 
Well, you also have to wonder how it would alter the thought process if the attacker were to presume that the others were armed as well.

With the odds of success being very low, he would have more than likely not attacked.
 
With the odds of success being very low, he would have more than likely not attacked.

Considering the cowardice of murdering a few dozen youngsters trapped on an island, he would have found another target.
 
Back
Top Bottom