Would guns have prevented Norwegian camp tragedy?

[AAFitz]

More guns=more tragedies IMHO.

more guns = more security IMHO

Tragedy is going to happen no matter what. If someone wants to kill someone bad enough, they are going to do it, and it doesn't matter if guns are allowed or not, obviously.

The law did not protect these innocent people in Norway. Only a firearm could have protected them.

Yes, if someone wants to kill badly enough, they may very well go do it.. however, giving them the availability of the easiest ways to kill people will obviously make it easier.

further, its certainly possible that without a gun they would not be confident enough to even try to kill someone with something less.

Less guns equals less death and more security.

If you had the option of being in a camp and having the option of arming a killer with a gun, and yourself, or not arming either.... you would simply have to be insane to arm your killer, because it would be so much easier for him to kill you whether or not you had a gun. If you are both unarmed, his job becomes infinitely harder. The gun just makes it easier to kill someone, so more people are killed. The fact that it may protect some is irrelevant, because they wouldnt need that protection if the guns werent there in the first place.

[Phatscotty]

Nobody was protected

[PLAYER57832]

Nobody was protected

Nothing is ever 100%. If I wanted to protect my kids from all diseases, harm, I would have to lock them in a secure room somewhere underground, earthquake proof, etc.

The question is when the "protection" is more harmful than the "ill". Also, what measures are most effective.

Sorry, but I don't think arming a group of teenagers is really the solution here.

We have guns here in the US. We still have crime, lots of it. The real problem here is not lack of guns, its the kind of hatred that says not just "your opinion is wrong", but "you have no right to your opinion" and then "your opinion is cuasing me harm, so I have the right to defend myself against it".

Whether guns are or are not around is irrelevant.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not advocating for arming teenagers. That is very silly. Please let this be the last time I have to say that.

I'm only saying, if at least 1 gun holder had been on the island, the % rate of protection would be closer to 100% than with 0 gun holders.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not advocating for arming teenagers. That is very silly. Please let this be the last time I have to say that.

I'm only saying, if at least 1 gun holder had been on the island, the % rate of protection would be closer to 100% than with 0 gun holders.

The victims in this case were almost all teenagers.

and, as far as that goes, I am all for teens using guns, for sports and with proper training even for protection. (after all, you can join the army at 18, sometimes even 17).
I am not in favor of saying that everyone should have a gun or that if everyone did we would be safer.

[Phatscotty]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

[PLAYER57832]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

Those uses are already allowed.
This is from Wikki, but for this is accurate enough:

To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far, the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self defence, but the first is rare and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership

[PLAYER57832]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

So, anyway, this whole thread was based on your misunderstanding Norwegian gun laws???
.. or what was your point?

[bedub1]

Winning

When you say that, we know you actually mean "i'm a total loser"

I wish the camp was a cub scout/boy scout camp. Then there would have been responsible adults at the shooting range and like 10-15 kids with rifles.

Nothing could PREVENT the "tragedy" but there are lots of things that could have reduces the body count.

[Baron Von PWN]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

Do you think people should carry guns on them at all times? Would it be appropriate to bring a gun to camp of full of minors? Sure in the infinitesimal chance that some mad gunman show up, maybe having a gun there makes sense. In every other scenario it just seems reckless.

[Phatscotty]

you mean like security? Yes I am sure something would have been done, even if all the was done was buying time for the innocents.

[bedub1]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

Do you think people should carry guns on them at all times? Would it be appropriate to bring a gun to camp of full of minors? Sure in the infinitesimal chance that some mad gunman show up, maybe having a gun there makes sense. In every other scenario it just seems reckless.

There is NOTHING reckless about carrying a gun at a camp full of minors.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so you think all summer camps should have armed gaurds now?

[PLAYER57832]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

Do you think people should carry guns on them at all times? Would it be appropriate to bring a gun to camp of full of minors? Sure in the infinitesimal chance that some mad gunman show up, maybe having a gun there makes sense. In every other scenario it just seems reckless.

There is NOTHING reckless about carrying a gun at a camp full of minors.

WRONG.
There is nothing wreckless about having trained instructors teach kids to use guns. Even at NRA camps, kids are not allowed free unsupervised access to guns.

[bedub1]

why cant it be a security guard, or a home-owner, or a boat-owner, or a supervisor that could have a gun?

Why does it have to be a 14 year old?

Do you think people should carry guns on them at all times? Would it be appropriate to bring a gun to camp of full of minors? Sure in the infinitesimal chance that some mad gunman show up, maybe having a gun there makes sense. In every other scenario it just seems reckless.

There is NOTHING reckless about carrying a gun at a camp full of minors.

WRONG.
There is nothing wreckless about having trained instructors teach kids to use guns. Even at NRA camps, kids are not allowed free unsupervised access to guns.

You didn't say KIDS. I thought you were talking about "trained instructors" carrying guns at a camp full of minors. For that I still say there is NOTHING wrong. For "kids" carrying them I'm not sure. I started learning about guns at like age 6 and at age 12 I was probably more responsible with them than lots of "adults".

[PLAYER57832]

You didn't say KIDS. I thought you were talking about "trained instructors" carrying guns at a camp full of minors. For that I still say there is NOTHING wrong. For "kids" carrying them I'm not sure. I started learning about guns at like age 6 and at age 12 I was probably more responsible with them than lots of "adults".

Well, then you were behind.. my kids started at age 5.

Even so, I would rather not create a world where kids' camps require armed gaurds.

People who want to do harm still will. All it will do is just change the manner of the harm.
.

[bedub1]

You didn't say KIDS. I thought you were talking about "trained instructors" carrying guns at a camp full of minors. For that I still say there is NOTHING wrong. For "kids" carrying them I'm not sure. I started learning about guns at like age 6 and at age 12 I was probably more responsible with them than lots of "adults".

Well, then you were behind.. my kids started at age 5.

Even so, I would rather not create a world where kids' camps require armed gaurds.

People who want to do harm still will. All it will do is just change the manner of the harm.
.

I don't remember how old I was....but it started with a BB gun.

I don't want them to require armed guards either. But I would welcome a camp counselor that is a mature responsible adult to carry a gun. As I said..there is NOTHING bad about that. If you disagree, then you would have to argue to disarm all police officers.

[cyrenius]

....but I only wish I could have been there to actually do something to stop the killer.

Yeah right , I almost see you with a cape and tights

[PLAYER57832]

I don't want them to require armed guards either. But I would welcome a camp counselor that is a mature responsible adult to carry a gun. As I said..there is NOTHING bad about that. If you disagree, then you would have to argue to disarm all police officers.

The point is not if they could.. the point is should it be necessary for them to have one.

[bedub1]

I don't want them to require armed guards either. But I would welcome a camp counselor that is a mature responsible adult to carry a gun. As I said..there is NOTHING bad about that. If you disagree, then you would have to argue to disarm all police officers.

The point is not if they could.. the point is should it be necessary for them to have one.

No it should not be necessary. Unfortunately we don't live in a utopia and the most dangerous animals walk on 2 legs.

[Phatscotty]

....but I only wish I could have been there to actually do something to stop the killer.

Yeah right , I almost see you with a cape and tights

I would have put that dude down so fast, and all y'all'd be likin my boots, and the discussion would be all about "You can't prove that 20 people would have died!"

[Lootifer]

A more pertinant question would be why people actually reply to Phatscotty?

Or more on topic: Why did it take the police 90 minutes to show up?

The BEST way Norway could have reduced the number of people killed was having a fast response team of armed offenders squad (or equivilent) at the island within 5-10 minutes. Seeing how the island was only 45km from Oslo I dont see how this could be a problem.

[codeblue1018]

First and foremost; guns do not kill; people do. If someone is adamant on killing someone, it can be done with or without the use of a firearm. An insane person such as this coward, wouldn't have cared whether or not he would have encountered resistance (armed security) as he was fixated on making a "statement" in which he was successful with. I do agree with Scotty, having some sort of armed security would have decreased the number of victims without a doubt in my opinion; saving at least one life is worth it to me. I can guarantee one thing, security measures will be in place at this retreat center to prevent acts of violence such as this incident from occurring again. Just like with 9/11, the USA was lax on a terror attack of that magnitude; as a result, numerous agencies were created to deter future hanious acts, which will most likely be the case for Norway as a whole. Sometimes it takes violence on a rather lax society to create a safer environment for the future. This is the times we're in people; violence, war, terrorists are in all four corners of the world.

[natty dread]

....but I only wish I could have been there to actually do something to stop the killer.

Yeah right , I almost see you with a cape and tights

I would have put that dude down so fast, and all y'all'd be likin my boots, and the discussion would be all about "You can't prove that 20 people would have died!"

You would have shot your own foot and ran home crying.

[PLAYER57832]

First and foremost; guns do not kill; people do. If someone is adamant on killing someone, it can be done with or without the use of a firearm. An insane person such as this coward, wouldn't have cared whether or not he would have encountered resistance (armed security) as he was fixated on making a "statement" in which he was successful with. I do agree with Scotty, having some sort of armed security would have decreased the number of victims without a doubt in my opinion; saving at least one life is worth it to me. I can guarantee one thing, security measures will be in place at this retreat center to prevent acts of violence such as this incident from occurring again. Just like with 9/11, the USA was lax on a terror attack of that magnitude; as a result, numerous agencies were created to deter future hanious acts, which will most likely be the case for Norway as a whole. Sometimes it takes violence on a rather lax society to create a safer environment for the future. This is the times we're in people; violence, war, terrorists are in all four corners of the world.

I agree there were security lapses, but having armed garms at summer camps seems the least effective and most costly type of response. Better to step up investigation efforts, not allow all the police in an area to be concentrated on once incident.. even a very big attack.