Conquer Club

Well?
EDIT: I do know that guns are legal in Norway, this came from a comment in the other thread. I

No..

... Too many variables for a flat "yes or no" answer.

... Would a licensed individual been present and carrying when the tragedy took place?

... Would that individual, assuming he/she were armed, had the courage to act?

... Would that individual have been able to act fast enough and skillfully enough to kill / disable the assailants?

... So the answer is a resounding maybe.

I will guarantee less innocent people would have died. You can write condolences for the victims, but I only wish I could have been there to actually do something to stop the killer.

More guns=more tragedies IMHO.

chang50 wrote: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.

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: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.

So you want it to be legal for every mad man to be able to carry a gun?

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: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.

So you want it to be legal for every mad man to be able to carry a gun?

Are you aware madman already had guns?

Phatscotty wrote:

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote: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.

So you want it to be legal for every mad man to be able to carry a gun?

Is that a yes or a no?

the madman already had a gun. What did guns being illegal accomplish?

... There are probably a hundred threads covering this argument. We're dredging this up again?

... America has lots and lots of guns.

... America has an extremely high violent crime rate when compared with other nations in its economic development group.

... Some nations have more guns per capita than the US (Canada) with much lower violent crime rates.

... The problem in the US is a culture of violence and fear, thus the slaughter.

... I think I just saved you guys about 50 posts.

...

Player had to separate this from the other thread, for some totally known reason.

Someone said that guns aren't even illegal in Norway anyways.

I will say the same thing I said in the Jared Loughner threads. If I was there, I guarantee the taking of many innocent lives would have been prevented.

Phatscotty wrote:Player had to separate this from the other thread, for some totally known reason.

Someone said that guns aren't even illegal in Norway anyways.

I will say the same thing I said in the Jared Loughner threads. If I was there, I guarantee the taking of many innocent lives would have been prevented.

It is impossible for anyone to gaurantee that,you can only do your utmost,too many variables.

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Player had to separate this from the other thread, for some totally known reason.

Someone said that guns aren't even illegal in Norway anyways.

I will say the same thing I said in the Jared Loughner threads. If I was there, I guarantee the taking of many innocent lives would have been prevented.

It is impossible for anyone to gaurantee that,you can only do your utmost,too many variables.

Guaranteed. Even if I missed (which aint gonna happen) I would still draw his attention away from all the unarmed people and they could run/swim away that much farther, increasing their odds of survival.

NO! The world is NOT the US thank bhuddah...

DJPatrick wrote:NO! The world is NOT the US thank bhuddah...

Say whatever you want. Odds are greatly in favor that at least 1 Innocent life would have been saved.

I find it odd people are bashing the only thing that could have saved these innocent lives.

DJPatrick wrote:NO! The world is NOT the US thank bhuddah...

I second the motion,it's ironic this nutjob was of the extreme right-wing,nationalistic,variety that usually want greater proliferation of guns.

greater proliferation is the only thing that could have stopped the killer.

nice logic

Whatever. Go ahead and be proud that if a nutjob around you pulls a gun out and starts shooting, your only option is to die. I mean Jesus christ, 80 something people died?! It's a tragedy nobody could do anything to stop the killer. That can only happen when there are no other guns around, and that is a fact.

There is only 1 thing that can stop a killer on a shooting rampage. Deny it all you want

Phatscotty wrote: There is only 1 thing that can stop a killer on a shooting rampage. Deny it all you want

I'm with you man. Everyone should have shurikens.

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Player had to separate this from the other thread, for some totally known reason.

Someone said that guns aren't even illegal in Norway anyways.

I will say the same thing I said in the Jared Loughner threads. If I was there, I guarantee the taking of many innocent lives would have been prevented.

It is impossible for anyone to gaurantee that,you can only do your utmost,too many variables.

Guaranteed. Even if I missed (which aint gonna happen) I would still draw his attention away from all the unarmed people and they could run/swim away that much farther, increasing their odds of survival.

If you're as much of a coward in real life as you are on these fora, that's a really dumb thing for you to try to guarantee. Based on what I've seen here, you'd have been behind a wall somewhere peeing your pants.

how about we compare % of people killed yearly by gun-related violence in norway and the us..
in one single event like thisone if someone of the "good guys" had a gun, yes maybe a quicker end but that is stupid way of thinking..
the same sort of argumentation would also validate "would melting down ALL guns have prevented the Norwegian camp tragedy" (and in this last argument we know for sure it would be yes) in the argument the TO is putting forward we do not know that a YES is the outcome..

but lets say for arguments sake phatscotty is there with his guns ready to save the day.. would he a) KNOW who the offender is b) have the presence to identify and take down the offender ONLY c) have the presence NOT to take down anyone running towards him in panic screaming (it could be the offender comming for poor scotty) and even if ALL of these where true think about what if guns where legal and 450 young people on the island had their own gun could the same be said for ALL of them (if NO then it does not help if scotty does everything right)..

i believe that is you take a panic situation with a lot of people, bringing more guns into that situation will not magically solve it..


/

Phatscotty wrote: There is only 1 thing that can stop a killer on a shooting rampage. Deny it all you want

another killer on a shooting rampage? great idea! or actually if the island is the example 450 minors all on a shooting rampage.. sounds like that would have gone a lot smoother..

/

Nobunaga wrote:... There are probably a hundred threads covering this argument. We're dredging this up again?

... America has lots and lots of guns.

... America has an extremely high violent crime rate when compared with other nations in its economic development group.

... Some nations have more guns per capita than the US (Canada) with much lower violent crime rates.

... The problem in the US is a culture of violence and fear, thus the slaughter.

... I think I just saved you guys about 50 posts.

...

thanks nobu! lol.

anonymus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: There is only 1 thing that can stop a killer on a shooting rampage. Deny it all you want

another killer on a shooting rampage? great idea! or actually if the island is the example 450 minors all on a shooting rampage.. sounds like that would have gone a lot smoother..

/

yes, the guy/girl who stops a killer on a rampage and saves lives and is a hero all around the world.....also becomes a killer on a rampage.

Nobunaga wrote:... Too many variables for a flat "yes or no" answer.

... Would a licensed individual been present and carrying when the tragedy took place?

... Would that individual, assuming he/she were armed, had the courage to act?

... Would that individual have been able to act fast enough and skillfully enough to kill / disable the assailants?

... So the answer is a resounding maybe.

/agree