I couldn’t help but notice that the weekend’s tragedy in Norway bears a striking resemblance to those at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Fort Hood, and others across These United States. Nope. I’m not talking about the shooter being a full-goose Bozo, ass-clown, who doesn’t have two, lucid brain cells to rub together. Nor am I talking about their choice in weapons, amount of ammo, or the number killed. No, I’m speaking of these idiot’s undying affection for “gun free zones” . . .
Note: All of Norway is one great big “gun free zone.” In the media, we’re hearing endless tales of how “peaceful” a country Norway is. (Yeah, that Viking heritage and peaceful Norse gods like Thor just fade into the mists of time at a time like this, don’t they?) But all those gun laws in Norway seem to have done just about as much good there as they do here.
In Norway, only the cops and military have guns. Except for the crazies and the criminals. But the law-abiding folks, they’re gun-free.
So I ask you, do gun-free zones attract homicidal nutjobs like trailer parks seem to attract tornados, or is it just a coincidence that the mass-murderers seem to prefer gun-free locales for their target practice, oh about 10 to 1?
This article feels like deja vu in a ying yang kind of way. To answer directly, YES!
YES !!!! If the bad guy knows that none of his victims are allowed to be armed, then his job will be easier. Now if this same bad guy knows that people are packing, he’s going to another place where the good lil sheep are and then he can rob them blind.
Thanks for being on point and on tagetr!
I think a lot of the time they go for places/persons that are the source of their anger, or places that are very target-rich. Whether or not they’re worried about CCW packing civvies… I don’t know for sure, it certainly may be a factor for some of them. Weren’t there CCW holders at/near the Loughner shooting? If so, it didn’t seem to deter him. It also could be a coincidence that a lot of target rich enviroments they target are gun-free, schools for example.
No, because Robert Farago has clearly stated that nobody needs a gun unless they are a minority in a high crime area.
So, no it’s clearly just a coincidence that these shooting always occur in “gun-free safe zones”. Just ask Robert Farago. Clearly nobody in a gun-free safe zone needs a gun, because by definition it’s low crime.
Ouch!!
Kevin, you’re going to get in trouble with PETA for beating a dead horse.
I doubt PeTA reads here, and *I’m* not telling those SOBs about it, so let him flog away.
I believe that people looking to become mass murderers do indeed prefer gun-free zones. Just look at when burglaries take place in various cities/countries.
Toronto: 44% against occupied homes
Great Britain: 59% against occupied homes
Netherlands: 48% against occupied homes
United States: 13% against occupied homes
If burglars take the possible presence of guns into consideration, why wouldn’t wanna-be mass murderers?
(Numbers from David Kopel, “Lawyers, Guns, and Burglars”. Idea for post from John Lott Jr.)
Burglars for the most part aren’t doing it to attack occupants(thought they will), the average burglar methinks is too lazy to get a job and would rather rob/mug/steal whatever he wants. I think a good link here is:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbers.htm#newjack
The kind of psychotics who do these shootings do not seem to plan their attacks(except this one, who seemed to carefully plan it… which is not a trend I’d like to continue.), and I doubt they’d particularly care if people might be armed there or not. How many of them turned their guns on themselves when caught?
I disagree. Crazy is not necessarily synonymous with stupid. I believe they do think about it only because they want to take the most lives before they are stopped. As far as them turning the gun on themselves, it seems like they normally do that when they have achieved maximum damage or before they are about to be caught.
Also, there are videos made by the Columbine shooters that included where the attacks were going to take place and they had plans to use explosives to cause what would amount to a human stampede. The US attorney dealing with the Red Lake Massacre said the attack was planned well in advance. So, I believe the thought that they don’t plan their attacks is a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that.
The Norwegian shooter surrendered the moment armed police confronted him, so there goes the thesis that he didn’t care if he met armed people.
Many (most?) mass shootings take place in schools, malls, and offices. These places are confined, target-rich environments, perfect for mass murder. It’s just a coincidence that these kinds of places are almost always posted (or in the case of schools, written into the law) as gun-free zones. Mass murderers are, I’m thinking, not the most rational people on Earth. If they actually put that much thought into it, they’d realize that there are a lot more effective ways to kill a lot of people. (Although the attack in Norway took me by surprise; 68 deaths — possibly more, I can’t get a reliable number — is now the world record for a shooting spree.)
Definitely most. I think it was John Lott who said that the Gabby Giffords shooting was the first mass shooting he could recall of that took place in something other than a “gun-free” zone or a state with tough “anti-gun” laws.
And even then, a CCW holder was RIGHT on the scene, way before the cops showed up.
And as soon as he could get a clear sight picture he drew down on the murderer and stopped him from reloading long enough to be taken down. If not for him,the woman who grabbed the new magazine would not have been able to do so, since it would have already been in the gun and the murders would have continued.
“Target Rich” isn’t quite accurate, since the number of targets would not have been different. More like “Gun Free Zone” = “Murderer Safety Zone”.
68 is the latest number yes. it Was adjusted down from 86. There are still 4 or 5 people are still missing though, and several are still in critical condition at the hospital so the number may change in near future.
Duh. Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Why do you ask? Is it not obvious?
i think this is a great piece to follow up the Canadian POV poster earlier, the” passionate” righteousness displayed by the author whom also admitted his total lack of experience with handguns and the need for “gun free zone” with using the horror in Norway displays its ineffective nature of such designations.
@ Kevin So, “no it’s clearly just a coincidence that these shooting always occur in “gun-free safe zones”
last time i checked, firearms violence occurs at such a disproportinate rate they don’t make the news everyday,so the bizzare attempt to link RF to gun free zone idiocy is odd. he is one of the few writers in the gun blogsphere that actually acknowledges the regularity of this issue.
I’m strongly in favor of gun free zones. I want all crazies with a grudge, political space-shots seeking martyrdom and frenzied droolers who won’t take their antipsychotics to know exactly where to go to find prey that has no chance of fighting back. It’s great for me because I won’t be there. A Gun Free Zone is a Ralph Free Zone. So to all those who advocate gun free zones, I say thank you. Mwah. That was a big kiss. In fact, just to show where my heart is, I suggest we create another gun free zone: the lot where Nancy Pelosi parks her car.
HA HA BWHA !
So ralph never goes in a gun free zone? Does that mean that ralph doesn’t vote? In most areas the voting locations are in schools. What about church? alot of churches are gun free zones.
Not picking on ralph … I’m just sayin’.
Are bears Catholic? Does the Pope crap in the woods?
Active shooters stop when confronted with force against them: They’re cowards at heart and intentionally target people who cannot defend themselves. If anything, this lunatic in Norway is different than most others in that he turned himself in when confronted rather than turning his gun on himself.
I wonder if the 21-year maximum sentence in Norway for this crime (ANY crime) had something to do with it…
I’m beginning to believe that he turned himself in to provide a martyr for other likeminded Europeans.
Actually the maximum sentence is 21 years.
But you are automatically released after 2/3 of the time.
So he will maximum serve 14 years.
The last couple in a minimum security facility without walls where he can come and go as he please as long as he spends the night there…
From Norway
Olds69
I’m not sure we can make the case that gun free zones attract murderers, however we certainly say that a murderer kills more people when nobody there can defend themselves. Ron Borsch created the concept of Stopwatch of Death. Basically, the longer an event goes on the more people die.
http://www.policeone.com/police-technology/Emergency-Response/articles/1349058-The-Stopwatch-of-Death/
ExurbanKevin is correct in that most shooters cease their attack at their first encounter with defensive aggression. Borsch advocates that law enforcement immediately engage the shooter, even if its one lone officer. In Norway, Law Enforcement took over an hour and a half to arrive, gear up, rally, plan, organize, pick thier arses, pick their noses, etc. When they finally arrived, the shooter immediately surrendered. What if one person WITH A GUN got to that island earlier in the event? How many children would be saved? Tragic.
The power of Open and Concealed Carry is that it dramatically reduces the time between initiation of the shooting and the first contact the shooter has with defensive aggression, a gun carrier. The stop watch of death stops as soon as it was started. Lives saved and probably never to be noticed by the corrupt bastards in the media.
I study mass shootings. Usually, the shooter has something “off” about him. This guy is different. Mark my words, he may be the most sane person in Norway. His actions and victim targeting was a political statement against Liberalism/Marxism. For example:
Its easy to be a soft on crime liberal when its someone else who is the victim. It feels different when its your child. 21 years for murder is insane.
It easy to deny people the right to carry firearms for their protection, when you and your liberal buddies are protected by taxpayer paid for security. Its different when your child has nobody to protect her.
Its easy to support Arab Terrorism against Jews when your children are safe in Olso. It stings when you experience what Israeli families fear EVERY DAY, the murder of their children. I bring this wrinkle up because two days before the shooting, the campers urged the Norwegian Foreign Minister to recognize the Palestinian state and push for its entry in the UN.
http://www.infowars.com/camp-in-norway-where-shooting-occurred-had-just-concluded-pro-palestinian-rally-the-day-before/
His targeting of the camp is very telling. That camp’s purpose was to indoctrinate children in the Liberal/Marxist agenda. Those kids were going to be the future leaders of Norway’s Liberal Party.
Study what again? Or maybe lets just review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois UNiversity, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents
murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.
Makes you wonder why the gun control advocates are so bloodthirsty.
Great, that knucklehead will roll out of the pen with enough juice left in his bones to kill another 80 or so people. Who knows though, maybe I’m just a primitive but that…”thing” needs something of his own medicine after a fair trial.
Please do some research. Norway is not gun-free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway.
Now, there is not CCW and self-defense is not considered a reason to own a gun, but it’s not free of them like the UK… supposedly.
I think, for the purposes of this discussion, they might as well have beeen ‘gun-free’. The point is that the shooter predicted, correctly, that none of his victims would be armed because none of them could carry.
I think you ought to do a little more research: The UK has not banned all firearms & I shoot regularly here.
No handguns or semi auto rifles except .22LR but there’s a fair number of legally held guns here.
Since Joe brought up the UK …. this is my favorite example of how gun control has reduced the population to snivveling wankers>
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/walthamforest/walthamforestnews/display.var.1013959.0.bullet_found_in_doorway.php
It reads like the Onion wrote it but its real.
They behaved like it was a 40mm grenade lying on the sidewalk instead of a .22. I can’t believe they actually dispatched officers to the scene to pick the thing up.
The consensus here was it appeared all to convenient Mr Khan happened to find the round…….
This part is pure fantasy: “To get hold of one of these is not easy. You have to go through a scrutinised search, you need a licence and you have to belong to a club.”
Ammunition of this kind would ordinarily be used in a small handgun or pistol, and both can be owned legally under licence.”
Did you ever stop and think about why the places that are “Gun Free Zones” have been made “Gun Free Zones”, schools especially? College Universities admittedly are a special situations but primary education facilities K-12 have very strict rules on handguns because of parents more so than homicidal teenagers fed up with the status quo. Couples get divorced and one parent takes the kids and runs off with them, at gunpoint if necessary. Because of this propensity for violence the case has been made that the right of the people to peaceably assemble is being infringed upon the by the second amendment. In the case of courthouses firearms in a courtroom can limit the witness’s obligation to truthfully testify and in that instance the Second Amendment must be restricted because it has been proven to restrict both the due process of law ie. the Fifth Amendment, and the right to peacefully assemble ie the First Amendment and possibly the Sixth Amendment and the Ninth as well. The same issues with schools can be said about Airports and various other locations. In these instances it has been determined that the rights and safety of the majority are compromised by the Second Amendment and it has to be abridged in favor of the whole. Admittedly restricting firearms in these areas can leave the population vulnerable, however the instances in which spree killings happen, it affects far few people in far less numbers than than those that use the facilities on a a daily basis across the country. Of course restricting firearms in locations creates a large population of unarmed civilians, however if you look at the locations that being affected, (University of Texas, VA Tech, Columbine, Tucson AZ ect. ) they are locations that are easily accessed with minimal security where large groups of people gather. Drive-by shootings happen in places that meet the same criteria, the Maryland Sniper attacks were similar in that they were a series of deadly attacks in the open. These “Gun Free Zones” don’t attract violence because they are “gun free”, but because of the nature of the area’s.
I am the divorced parent of a teen. I’m in the process of getting primary custody of my child. I taught for several years in public schools, as well as privately. So I think I can speak with a certain degree of empathy, if not authority on the issue of “gun-free zones” in schools.
It comes down to this. If you’re going to make some place a “gun-free zone” you damn well better be able to do two things: make sure guns can’t get in, and make sure people with guns can’t either.
Some hospitals have metal detectors and armed guards. Fair enough. Airplanes have all sorts of security. Makes sense to me. But if you’re going to make a school a gun-free zone, then you’d best put metal detectors and guards at each entrance, devise choke-points for ingress (but allow mass exit points, in case of emergencies of any kind), and harden the target as much as possible. Why? Because the bad guys don’t obey the rules, no matter how well-meaning or logical they may be.
My kid used to attend a school in Amarillo that was housed in a strip center. They’d built classrooms inside the building, using the front windows as one side of a long hallway. In other words, they’d avoided the trap of using those windows so people could see in. However, all that plate glass offered next-to-no resistance to an attack by, say, someone with a grudge and an pickup truck.(See: Luby’s attack in Killeen, TX) If someone had wanted to attack that school, it was the softest of soft targets. I spoke to the principal, a well-meaning, Godly man. He shrugged and said he was leaving it up to prayer. I like what Ben Franklin said: “God helps he who helps himself.”
The problem with your idea is you presuppose that restricting firearms will somehow magically keep kids safe at school. Now I’m NOT arguing that having guns lying about is a good idea around kids. But I’d have preferred that somebody in that building (principal, teacher, or staff) have a concealed weapon, just to make sure that if someone DID come in and start shooting, we wouldn’t have had to count the number of dead kids that would have died waiting on the cops to show up.
Making a school a gun-free zone might keep me from carrying – but only because I obey the law. Scrupulously. What makes you think that an estranged parent, bent on either murder or abduction, would stop and think, “Oh, I can’t use a gun…this is a gun-free zone.” Don’t be ridiculous. If they’re going to ignore court-orders and restraining orders, they’re damn sure not going to pay any attention to a gun law.
Let’s stop and think about this for a moment.
I’m getting divorced and I want to take the kids and run off with them, at gunpoint if necessary.
That is, I’m willing to commit major, serious felonies – kidnapping, death threats, etc.
But hey, there’s a sign saying I can’t take this gun onto this property to COMMIT those crimes, and gee, I don’t want to break the law or anything, so I guess I won’t….
Even if I give you every single thing you’re asking for, for the sake of argument, the entire concept of the “Gun-free zone” still fails.
The ONLY way “gun free zones” can come close to working (I still think they fail, but it’s at least an arguable point) is if the party responsible for the zone (the school, the courthouse, etc) provides security of their own, willing to use force to enforce said zone and protect the people they have disarmed.
I think a gun free zone is incidental to the shooting. The shooter chooses his target based his perceived greivances or prejudices. Note San Ysidro McDonald’s and the Stockton schoolyard shooting.
I think gun-free zones are almost required for a SUCCESSFUL mass shooting.
Where the crazies go with the intent to kill a bunch of people is uncontrollable, really – whether they LIKE to pick GFZ or not is, in that regard, irrelevant.
What matters is minimizing the number of places they can SUCCEED in their attempt to kill a lot of people.
The ones we hear about, the ones with high body count, tend to be Gun Free Zones. Whether that is the majority of ATTEMPTS at mass murder is not really all that relevant.
“Note San Ysidro McDonald’s and the Stockton schoolyard shooting.”
Two more “Gun Free Zones”
“No, I’m speaking of these idiot’s undying affection for …”
I believe that should be idiots’
If Norway was a gun-free zone, how come there are photos of the guy holding a M-14 rifle?
Hmmm:
“Norway has a large population of hunters.[3] Semi-automatic and bolt action rifles, as well as shotguns, make up the better part of the guns in civilian homes.
There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime.
Handguns have some calibre restrictions. A Smith & Wesson Model 500, for example, is illegal due to its high power, but other, less powerful, guns are legal as they are used in sports shooting. Norway has a long tradition of high-end sports shooting competitions, especially rifle shooting. Each calibre must be used in some type of competition to be allowed. Also, there is a restriction on the number of weapons an owner can have for each calibre. For recreational shooters, only one gun is allowed in each calibre. For professional and semi-professional shooters, a spare gun is allowed. A recreational shooter is only allowed to own four different handguns. To obtain more, documentation on extensive involvement in sport shooting is needed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Types_of_civilian_owned_guns
The truth about guns eh? As if!
Obviously, a gun-free zone doesn’t necessearly mean a gun-free country. To me there’s a major difference. In Norway, if you go to an event somewhere, chances are it’s a gun-free zone.
So for me, Norway being one gun-free zone is partially true. You will not bump into anybody carrying heat (unless illegaly) anywhere in the country unless you attend a shooting-competition or go huntin’ (Exception being the visit from President Obama). Regular police do not even have firearms in their vehicles, if it is needed they have to return to HQ to pick it up, or wait for SWAT.
It was a Ruger Mini-14 or 30, not an M14.
So it says that the only really safe place in Norway is on the range.
You know what a “target rich environment” is? A country where the police have to get specific authorization from their chief to access their firearm.
Or a country that outlaws the defense of one’s self.
Umm, Brad: The following “truth” in your essay is completely false:
“In Norway, only the cops and military have guns. Except for the crazies and the criminals. But the law-abiding folks, they’re gun-free.”
Get your facts straight.
JHR: I stand by my statement. Like England and Canada, the average citizen cannot own handguns (which, ’round these parts, is the gold-standard for self defense and the very definition of the freedom to own guns). I don’t count any of those countries as ones where their citizens are free to own guns. Sure, they can own a shotgun or perhaps a hunting rifle. But I doubt very seriously this nutjob had a legal weapon there.
Brad: If you meant “hand” guns, then edit your original post to reflect that distinction. However, you will still be misstating the facts about Norway gun laws. Hand guns are legally owned by “average” citizens there who take a gun safety course, pass a written test, and are members of gun clubs. Furthermore, Breivik’s guns were legal and licensed. Why do you play so fast and loose with the facts, or the “truth,” on a website proclaiming the “truth” on guns? Very sloppy…
False. You need to be 21 without a criminal record. That’s it. You are restricted to 4 handguns unless you have a specific need for more.
I chortle every time somebody posts a story on here eviscerating the media for getting a fact wrong.
Hold on there…
This is a few guys with a web site and a whole bunch of people commenting from their desks at work/home. The legacy media is a massive, for-profit enterprise employing hundreds of thousands of people and selling a product. That product is (at least supposedly) accurate news.
Of course we should be doing our best to get it right, but if we make the occasional mistake that does nothing to excuse the rampant inaccuracy and often deliberate distortion on gun issues in the major media. And we should certainly continue to call them out on it.
Instead of ‘Gun Free Zones’, wouldn’t the best, smartest, most bright and beautiful common sense gun law be the ‘Criminal Intent Free Zone’?
If not, why not?
First of all, they don’t ALL happen in gun-free zones. We’ve seen the nuts do it in police stations, too.
But, to the question, are multiple murderers attracted to gun-free zones, they might be. That sounds reasonable, especially for the crazy ones who plan the job and are not stupid.
But the solution is where we differ. Doing away with gun free zones will cause more problems than it solves, just like guns do anywhere. Even if it would prevent the big incidents like the ones you mentioned, let’s not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that’s largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).
Here’s the solution. Every gun owner must be licensed. To qualify one would have to pass a battery of medical and psychological tests, in addition to the usual criminal background check. The medical board appointed to conduct these tests would have a policy similar to may-issue. They would have the power to exclude the unfit.
Now, try to be objective. I know how hard that is for you guys, but try. Forgettinig for a moment how difficult it would be to implement, and how expensive and how even depressed people have a right to bear arms, forget all the objections for a moment and answer me this.
Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.
Define “some.” Put a number to it.
“Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.”
No. If I had a criminal act in mind and wanted a gun, I could get one on the street in fifteen minutes, along with a couple of bags of illegal heroin. It would take less time if I called ahead. That’s the truth and you know it.
The fact is, I’m licensed, my guns are registered, I have passed a battery of tests, I’m not part of the criminal culture, and I could go out on the street tonight and buy as many illegal guns as I can afford. In Massachusetts. The capital of the gungrabber world. Mikey’s utopia.
Get a new song, mikey, because the one you’re singing now seems strikingly similar to “I Will Go On,” which is boring the crap out of me.
Right after you get licensed to spew this ka ka you spew!
I wouldn’t want to live in your country.
I know, let’s license cars! We have far more deaths from cars than from firearms, afterall!
Wait, we already do that… and we have lots of deaths. OK, here’s the solution: outlaw cars.
Now, try to be objective. I know how hard that is for you, but try. Forgettinig for a moment how difficult it would be to implement, and how expensive, forget all the objections for a moment and answer me this.
Do you think having no cars around would prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.
Obviously, the answer is yes. Of course, also obviously, there would be OTHER tragedies instead, and the other costs of such a policy would be unbelievably astronomical.
But hey, if you ignore all that and simply answer the question, “Would some tragedies be prevented? Yes or no.” the answer would HAVE to be yes.
In short, your analysis is utterly divorced from reality. There are arguments for gun control that at least aren’t laughable on their face… but you’re not making one.
We already license doctors and there are STILL more deaths from medical errors/accidents than gun deaths…hmmm……..
“… let’s not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that’s largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).”
No, we do not have “an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY.” We don’t have mass murder every single day. Even when we do have mass murders, far fewer people die.
Obviously, you’re comparing total deaths by all gun-related incidents in the United States to a single incident in Norway rather than all gun-related deaths in Norway. It would be helpful if you compared apples to apples. It would also be helpful if you considered that Norway has a population 1.6% the size of the United States. “The equivalent of the Norway tragedy” would be 63 mass shootings of similar magnitude in the United States.
One more point:
Well, let’s just get rid of ALL the guns then, eh? Imagine a world without guns…
Actually, we had one of those for several millenia. Go look at history and tell me how that turned out…
Guns are tools, just like spears, knives, cars, and fire. If I said “Doing away with fire free zones will cause more problems than it solves, just like fire does anywhere,” you’d think I was a nut. We ban fire in certain places and times for very specific reasons, but no one claims that fire causes more problems than it solves… in part because, even if that WERE true, it doesn’t matter. Fire exists, and nothing we can do will change that.
Guns exist. The technology is old, well-known, highly-developed, and easy to implement (see WWII for how to make guns out of household bits, for instance). Criminals WILL get guns, even if they have to make them themselves.
As such, disarming the non-criminals seems rather silly.
Even if you someone could disarm everyone, big, strong criminals will still be able to easily victimize smaller, weaker people. What are you going to do about that? Outlaw swords? Knives? Baseball bats? Bigness? MUSCLES?!?
And who gets to determine what “unfit” means? Bloomberg wants you declared unfit if you were late on a bill payment, have received a traffic ticket, or have been fired from a job.
You forgot “consume salt, trans-fats or, god forbid, tobacco.”
Salt, trans-fats and tobacco were not mentioned in the law drafted by New York Mayor Bloomberg. Good example on how ridiculous Bloomber is though.
“Now, try to be objective. I know how hard that is for you guys, but try. Forgettinig for a moment how difficult it would be to implement, and how expensive and how even depressed people have a right to bear arms, forget all the objections for a moment and answer me this.
Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.”
Yes it would, 1 to 2% of them. And requiring everyone to call the police for an approval code, then blow into a breathalyzer everytime the want to start their car would prevent some of the drunk driving deaths as well……
“let’s not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that’s largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).”
Then why have both homicides and and fatal accidents decreased while gun ownership has increased? It’s true that correlation doesn’t mean causation, but it’s really hard to have causation without correlation.
In fact, the murder rate rose from 5 per 100,000 just prior to the passage of the GCA’68, by the mid 1980’s, with carry being legal in in onyly 20% of the states, (and highly restricted in most of those), the murder rate to OVER 10 per 100,000. Starting with the Gun Owners’ Protection Act and the Florida carry law guns have become easier to own and carry, until now, with 95% of the states having carry law, with 80% of the states being “Shall issue” or “Constitutional Carry” states, and the murder rate is below 5 per 100,000.
Why are gun control advocates so bloodthirsty?
Thank you for attaching some hard numbers to my point.
“Now, try to be objective. I know how hard that is for you guys, but try.”
Rhetorical tip: opening with a gratuitous insult isn’t usually an effective tactic. Especially insofar as it’s the anti- side of the gun debate that’s generally arguing from emotion rather than reason.
“Forgettinig for a moment how difficult it would be to implement, and how expensive and how even depressed people have a right to bear arms, forget all the objections for a moment and answer me this. Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.”
If we ignore the fact that what you propose is completely impossible then the answer is “yes”, of course it would prevent some tragedies. The problem is that what you propose is in fact completely impossible. You may as well ask “if we appointed a unicorn to look after every single gun owner, wouldn’t that prevent some tragedies?” There is simply no way the government could competently administer such a program, even if we could afford it (which we can’t).
And here’s something else your little proposal doesn’t take into account: there’s not an infinite supply of medical and psychological professionals out there. So while you have hundreds (probably thousands) of these guys examining perfectly normal people trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack how many people with actual problems are going to go untreated? How many suicides are your plan going to indirectly cause? How much untreated depression?
For someone who claims to be on the rational, objective side of the debate you seem to have a real problem with the concept of the cost/benefit analysis.
Great response. It’s nice to see the discussion brought back down to reality.
Not to mention that psychiatry is perhaps the most muddied of all disciplines because the diagnosis can be easily influenced by the cultural norms and personal beliefs the doctor possesses and lives in.
A standard test to detect the presence of a physical bacterial infection or recent heart attack is objective because it only spits out numbers or a presence/no presence answer.
Different angle from mikeb302k’s “solution”: Every non-gun owner must go through his proposed wringer. Wouldn’t you weed out more bad guys? Seems easy and cheap!
Actually that’s a good point. As long as we’re doing pre-emptive psych screening why stop at people who want guns? Why not include people with access to cars, dangerous chemicals, knives and clubs?
In other words… everybody.
I see a fun movie plot brewing here! We could cast Louise Fletcher as the psych screening nurse…
Why not just ban criminals and crazy people? Remove them from the streets and 99% of gun crime goes away. Not that you’re going to stop terrorists like Anders Behring. You can’t stop terrorists from arming themselves. There’s always a way if you cash to pay for it.
Gun free zones are attempts by union stewards for the criminal profession, also known as liberal politicians, to create safer working conditions for their members. Passing laws against guns only disarms the law-abiding, as everyone knows. Most guns used in crimes are stolen anyway. Ban them and they would be smuggled across the border along with the bales of marijuana and bricks of cocaine. If by some miracle you stopped all guns at the border, any competent machinist can make any firearm he likes in his garage or basement, just like the Pakistanis do in the gun market in Peshawar.
You can see how little good a gun ban does by the one the Australians enacted. The consequent spike in gun crimes puzzled, deeply puzzled the dopey liberals who pushed it through, apparently thinking the criminals would ditch their guns, too.
TO: All
RE: Welcome….
….to the World of the REAL. — Morpheus, Matrix
Once the shooting starts, you’re either a combatant or a pop-up target. — cbpelto
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In this world there are tigers. And it takes a tiger to fight a tiger.]
P.S. For those who can’t quite ‘get it’….
….it’s about what we call in the Army ‘Fighting Spirit’. And you don’t get that from the PC vaunted America public education system.
Guns definitely help, but what was it on Utoya? One gunman against hundreds of people?
Whatever became of the vaunted Viking Berserker ‘Fighting Spirit’? Especially in defending their own women-folk?
P.P.S. ….
….The most likely way for a group to survive a ‘near ambush’ is IMMEDIATE and VIOLENT ACTION against the ambushing force.
Chuck, I am sure you remember from your Army days that the response to an ambush is to charge into it. Otherwise, you just get caught in the beaten zone and get killed.
Hi Cannoncocker-cum-PRPuke-cum-Minister
What do you think a mere grunt such as I means by “IMMEDIATE and VIOLENT ACTION against the ambushing force”?
Sherry and giggles?
HA HA!
P.S. Not to disparage the members of the most educated and elegant members of the Combat Support arm….
….my FIL, in his fading days, has opened up to me….at last.
Seems that during the Bulge he was in the 2ID DIVARTY HHB as a cartographer.
With a platoon of Tigers w/infantry support approaching the HHB, he was told to hold them off with nothing more than a BAR and a link to a 105mm battery, while the HHB ‘bugged-out’.
The first volley fire landed in the HHB motor park. . The next, adjusted volley took out the lead Tiger and a number of the infantry. This allowed sufficient time for the HHB to bug-out. However, everyone had to spend time ridding the fender of the various trucks that would still run, pouring water into the perforated radiators.
Sherry, anyone?
“In Norway, only the cops and military have guns.”
Except in Norway, the cops do not have guns. They all patrol unarmed and have to get a supervisor to approve them drawing a firearm from the arms room. In fact, the first cops to arrive at Utoya were just as defenseless as the campers ABB was shooting, so the cops hid from him until armed police finally arrived, 90 minutes after the call had gone out. At least, according to news reports.
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: I Hope….
….that these ‘police’ do not use the motto….
To Serve and To Protect
It would be too blatant a proof that they only serve and protect themselves.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I have an understanding with my local police — I have them outgunned, but they have me outnumbered. And they’re afraid. — Breivik]
When will people wise up to the simple fact that, in virtually every incident mentioned here, the only way to reduce the damage done by the crazed idiots is to ATTACK!!
There were certainly enough people at this incident, even though most were teens, to have overwhelmed this POS and stopped the killing.
But, I fear, our modern civilization has been brainwashed into thinking that “if I’m quiet and subservient I won’t be killed.”
If I’m ever unfortunate enough to find myself in such a situation I can only hope that I get close enough to the perp to cut his throat.
“When will people wise up to the simple fact that, in virtually every incident mentioned here, the only way to reduce the damage done by the crazed idiots is to ATTACK!!”
That’s easy enough to say sitting at your computer with no one shooting at you. These weren’t US Marines, they were teenagers at summer camp. To expect a bunch of them to think “Let’s all rush him. Some of us will surely die (possibly including myself) but we’ll stop his rampage” is extremely unrealistic.
No decent person these days blames a woman for being raped because she was wearing the wrong clothes. Neither should we blame murder victims for reacting a certain way when the gunfire starts. We especially shouldn’t do it if we’ve never been downrange of gunfire ourselves.
TO: James Felix
RE: Heh
That’s easy enough to say sitting at your computer with no one shooting at you. These weren’t US Marines, they were teenagers at summer camp. To expect a bunch of them to think “Let’s all rush him. Some of us will surely die (possibly including myself) but we’ll stop his rampage” is extremely unrealistic. — James Felix
Only for those who are being prepared to be slaughtered.
Fighting Spirit is inculcated from birth. If you have a decent education system. Something we’ve lacked since the 1960s.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Qui desiderat pacem — praeparat bellum. — Vegetius]
P.S. If you can’t defend your own women-folk….
…you’re not worthy of them.
As I said earlier….
Once the shooting starts, you’re either a combatant or a pop-up target.
Based on James’ comment, I would gather that James wants everyone to be a ‘target’ and maybe he would be the ‘shooter’.
Typical ‘progressive’ mentality?
This is one of the many reasons I advocate Universal Governmental Service…..
….with the first four months being like military basic training. Therefore EVERYONE is prepared to be a ‘combatant’. And there is less likelihood of mass massacres like what happened at Utoya.
“unrealistic” vs. “impossible”….
….one in the same.
As for ‘predictable’….
Logical is ‘predictable’.
Fight nice, kids.
Chuck – I wouldn’t place James anywhere in the neighborhood of “progressive”…
TO: Patrick
RE: James Felix, Progressive?
Well….
….considering I don’t know you in the first place….
….I can’t really take your word at first ‘blush’.
Please excuse my reticence, but, I’ve been trained on intell ops by the near-best, e.g., CSGC.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you have a Life in the first place, you’ll never have a mid-life crsis.]
Chuck,
I find your punctuation puzzling. Just sayin’.
Now, just to make sure I follow your logic walk me through this: you’ve been trumpeting your “qualifications” in virtually every post you make, making yourself out to be the cooler older brother of both John Rambo and James Bond, but you find my assertions that I grew up in New York and worked as a bouncer unbelievable?
As it stands, given your bluster, I happen to think that repeated viewings of “Saving Private Ryan” are in fact as close as you’ve ever been to combat. But the good news is it doesn’t matter one way or the other, because none of it is relevant to my (or your) point.
Specifically that point is this: you contend that it’s not only possible but it’s to be expected that parents in a peaceful and prosperous society should raise their children to have a warrior mentality, in spite of the fact that only the barest fraction of them will ever encounter true violence, let alone become warriors themselves. My contention is that your belief is unrealistic. Note that I’ve not yet offered any opinion on whether or not such upbringing would be desireable, I speak only to the realism of your plan. You’ve drawn several unfounded inferences and then insulted me based on them.
As proof of my point I refer you to the current state of western civilization, as well as the historical states of similarly prosperous empires throughout history.
As proof of your point you offer… what, exactly?
P.S. Assuming you’re actually telling the truth I’d like to thank you for your service to our country… even though you’ve chosen to insult my own.
TO: James Felix
RE: Patience
Got to go out and do some shopping for supper. Back in a ‘bit’…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There is no love sincerer than the love of food. — George Bernard Shaw]
P.S. George must have gone through the British form of the Ranger course.
I went in at my proper weight. I came out like an escapee from Auschwitz….with a VERY BAD attitude.
Now I’m a gourmet cook. Tonight!
• Vichyssoise
• Chiabbati
• Boursin Cheese
• Iced Boiled Shrimp w/cocktail sauce
• Chablis
• Creme Puffs
• Fresh Strawberries
• Dipping Chocolate
And a movie….of her selection….after we enjoy the next installment of Chef!
TO: James Felix
RE: Proof ‘Positive’
Well….
….a couple of weeks ago, someone challenged me in a similar manner. I said I’d authorize the DOD[os] to release that information in their official forms for $10K. They didn’t care to take me up on my offer, which was much more than former Senator Kerry was willing to do. But, HEY!…..I’m ‘retired’. I could use some help on maintaining this four-level, 6500 sq ft, three-wyth brick, 1901 historic structure built by one of the historic characters of this community that I live in now. It needs a paint-job.
The vichyssoise is cooling….
Ask me a question about the 508th PIR. Ask me a question about Iron Mike….and what we would do to Chapter 13s. Ask me a question about being a Jumpmaster. Ask me a question…..that you might THINK an individual such as I claim to be might know. Maybe the proper procedures for a traditional ‘Prop Blast’ initiation? How about what the Fort Bragg Officers Club offered for Sunday Brunch after Sunday services at the Main Chapel—a block away? [NOTE: Two of the offerings became a family tradition in the holiday season and on other special occasions. If you get the right combination, I’ll give you the recipes.]
At this point, I suggest to the blogmeister, that the ad homs have become a matter of ‘credibility’. And therefore, something beyond mere personal attacks. More along the lines of whether or not someone can be ‘trusted’ in what they add to the discussion. . [NOTE: I’ve seen this comportment before. It’s akin to what I commented on earlier….’He HIT me!’, whining.]
RE: Naval Service
I greatly respect the service of anyone who puts this country above themselves. If it were not for the US Navy and all of the men and women who have served it, including my Mother—God rest her soul—and my mother-in-law—God rest her soul—and the men of the US Army—who came before you and me—we would not have been able to do all that they have done. They and my comrades-in-arms of the Marines and the men and women of the US Air Force: in which I was reared. [NOTE: Did the Cuban thing at Ground Zero, Offutt AFB, Nebraska. Bags packed by the door. If Dad got the call, we all hit the door, running. He for his battle position as a Combat Crew Commander of an ICBM site. We for the family stomping grounds on the south shore of Lake Superior.]
Indeed. Being a ‘world class logistician’ (LEDC grad), I know more about how the Navy supports the ground forces, as they go ‘ashore’, than most others. [NOTE: I’m not particularly happy with that ‘support’.] Let alone getting there in the first place.
Service is service. But there are different ‘grades’ of ‘risk’. Let us respect that.
More to follow…..
“[NOTE: I’ve seen this comportment before. It’s akin to what I commented on earlier….’He HIT me!’, whining.]”
First of all, I don’t think anyone actually asked Robert to remove anything. And if someone did, seeing as how it was my posts he removed then I hardly make a very logical suspect (you, in fact, make a much more likely one). However, as long as you bring it up, you clearly use “progressive” as a synonym for all sorts of things from cowardly to childish. I don’t care all that much that you insulted me, but given your self-imposed code of machismo it’d sure be nice if you’d man up and admit you did. And, since you have no idea what it is I did in the navy maybe you should heed your own advice and respect that there are different degrees of risk.
“At this point, I suggest to the blogmeister, that the ad homs have become a matter of ‘credibility’.”
Which goes to show you ignored the entirety of my last post. Let me recap the arguments for you:
1) You essentially blamed a group of children for being complicit in their own murder by failing to charge an armed lunatic.
2) I said that it was unrealistic to expect any significant number of children raised in the peaceful, prosperous, 21st century first-world to be possessed of the mindset required to do that.
3)You insist that to expect such training of all youth is indeed realistic. You also inferred, based solely on my reluctance to blame children for their own murders, that I’m personally in favor of not fighting back. You made this assumption even though a 30 second search of this site would show any number of comments by me strongly endorsing self-defense, firearms ownership and any number of other positions that routinely get me labeled a “gun loon”. Hell, all you had to do was look a little earlier up in this very comment thread!
None of these arguments require any military credibility at all. They all stand or fall on their own merits, whether they’ve been asserted by George Patton or Neville Chamberlain. I’ve offered evidence in support of my comments, all you’ve offered is to continue playing “What’s My Line” in an attempt to prove that you were Captain America before you retired.
Which means, as someone who’s judged debate contests must surely realize, that you are on the losing side of this argument.
TO: James Felix
RE: Heh
First of all, I don’t think anyone actually asked Robert to remove anything. — James Felix
Clever attempt at disinformation, that.
And with that, you’re no longer worthy of discussion. Your dishonesty marks you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….]
Interesting choice of words. Since you never answered any of my points I don’t see how we were having a discussion even prior to this.
The bottom line is that you’re comfortable blaming children for being murdered and I’m not.
And by the way, the only thing on your list of “gourmet” foods that require any preparation beyond opening the package is the soup, and that’s hardly a challenging dish. From this I conclude that your culinary skills are fully the equal of your military ones.
I’m curious as to what part of “peddle that squid mentality elsewhere” was supposed to express such deep respect for my service.
TO: Patrick
RE: Fight Nice, Kids
The monster didn’t ‘fight nice’.
Tell that to the parents of the slain on Utoya.
Preferably IN PERSON.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Be sure that your medical insurance is paid and your last will and testament is up to date…..
P.P.S. Young people died. Did Patrick cry?
Insurance paid in full, will up to date.
Did you run out of meds?????
TO: Patrick B
RE: [OT] Meds ad homs
Did you run out of meds????? — Patrick B
Should I report this one to the blogmeister?
Not to mention that this correlates well with your ‘defense’ of James Felix as ‘not’ being ‘progressive’. You both use the same tactics in ‘debate’.
RE: Up To Date Docs
Insurance paid in full, will up to date. — Patrick B
Enjoy your trip to Norway, telling all the survivors and the parents of the murdered that, “At least THEY fought nice, against the monster.”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….]
Hey Mensa boy, when you ask somebody if their life insurance and last will are up to date it sounds like a threat. I am done with your obscure banter. That is all.
TO: Patrick B
RE: Threats, Anyone?
A ‘threat’ is someone telling someone else, “I’m going to kick your silly a**.”
What I ‘advise’ anyone who comes to me with intention of doing physical assault and/or other form of injury is that they be prepared to meet the Creator.
There’s something of a ‘difference’. Even in the concept of the Law. The difference is the former is a ‘threat’. The latter is a matter of ‘self-defense’ while being polite about giving them ‘good advise’. You show up on my door step, after this, and I’ll consider it a potential threat of higher probability.
Colorado is a ‘Make My Day’ state. My scout platoon leader, from when I commanded an infantry company, put down an intruder to his house. The intruder died before the ambulance could arrive. Gunshot wound. And I think I was a better shot than he.
Hope that helps, progressive-boy.
Or should I ask for a restraining order regarding you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It helps to actually practice the Law…..on several occasions. Including arguing the Law before a military tribunal.
P.P.S. As for the ‘meeting the Creator’ business, I have to apologize up front. It’s something that is sort of ‘inculcated’ to people with certain forms of training. They are kind of ‘trained’ to finish a ‘fight’ quickly and in the most effective manner possible, i.e., so as that the opponent will not rise again to cause more ‘trouble’. It’s a ‘reflex’. Like hearing, “Prepare to Land”, amongst paratroopers. Everything just ‘clicks’ automatically.
P.P.P.S.
I am done with your obscure banter. That is all. — Patrick B
Don’t bother me ‘boy’. — WC Fields
You’ll be ‘sorry’….
TO: James Felix
RE: ‘Progressive’….
…is as ‘progressive’ does.
RE: Mindsets, Anyone
I grew up in the New York City of the 1970s, went to a military prep school, served in the navy during Desert Storm. — James Felix
From my personal perspective—Airborne-Ranger-Infantry—, few Squids are properly trained/motivated for personal combat. You know….
….the sort of ‘mindset’ that is oriented to personal—mono y mono—physical assault.
There’s something of a difference in ‘mindsets’ about operating equipment versus sticking a knife in someone. Remember the knife-fight scene in Saving Private Ryan?
So take your Squid mentality and peddle it somewhere else. It doesn’t play well where the tread meets the pavement.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You haven’t lived, until you’ve almost died.]
There is the whole problem in a nutshell. None of the people on the island had been trained to, or thought about, protecting themselves and others. When faced with a situation where they needed this mind and skill set, they were completely unprepared and defenseless. One of the first persons killed on the island was an unarmed police officer who was totally unprepared and ill-equipped to face such a situation. Being able to defend yourself and others takes much pre-thought and practice if it is to be successful. Those who refuse to do such preparation will always be victims.
TTAG flaming policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. Please ping me if someone makes it personal: [email protected]
TO: Robert Farago
RE: Ad Homs
I’ll keep that in mind. But not having thrown the first ad hom, , e.g., allegation of ‘progressive’ politics vs. ‘loudmouth’.
Once we get into barroom-brawling mode, I tend to go for the ‘quick-kill’. Something inculcated since my days as a young paratrooper.
My apologies for any offense.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Find. Fix. Fight. Finish….and move on to the next target.]
P.S. Be Advised….
….I’ve noticed that ‘progressive mentality’ enjoys something of an advantage in ‘debate’. Claiming victimhood, when they were the ones who cast the first ‘stone’.
P.P.S. Comes from years of judging high school debate tournaments. Including state championship finals.
Something to do with early ‘crying mode’ tactics in a playground fight that they started….
What on Earth are you talking about?
You. Compadre…..
So, you’re suggesting I asked the moderator to remove my own post? That makes sense… how, exactly?
Arguably, any efforts by government officials in the USA to license or restrict firearms ownership in any way is unconstitutional. The constitution does not say “government shall regulate” or in any way give the power of determination of gun ownership to the government. It says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Arguably any roadblock, be it paying for a license or taking a safety course constitutes infringement.
On an island of unarmed people, the one armed man is king. — Illka
TO: Leonard
RE: Indeed
On an island of unarmed people, the one armed man is king. — Illka
But ONLY if the hundreds of unarmed people are ALL selfish ‘cowards’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[One of the greatest blessings of virtue is the contempt of death. He who has learned how to die has unlearned how to serve. To be ready to die frees us from all bondage and thralldom — Montaigne]
TO: James Felix
RE: Back On-Topic: The ‘Fighting Spirit’
Specifically that point is this: you contend that it’s not only possible but it’s to be expected that parents in a peaceful and prosperous society should raise their children to have a warrior mentality, in spite of the fact that only the barest fraction of them will ever encounter true violence, let alone become warriors themselves. — James Felix
Free society is not, repeat NOT, maintained by an unarmed and uneducated society. As some sage once put it….
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. Make decisions and take responsibility for yourself, or the state most surely will do so for you, which is the first step towards fascism.
RE: Unrealistic?
My contention is that your belief is unrealistic. Note that I’ve not yet offered any opinion on whether or not such upbringing would be desireable, I speak only to the realism of your plan. — James Felix
If it is indeed ‘unrealistic’ to expect a heretofore ‘free’ people to defend their freedoms, then US are indeed ‘doomed’ to servitude to the state. And you apparently support that.
RE: Let the ‘Whining’ Begin
You’ve drawn several unfounded inferences and then insulted me based on them. — James Felix
Heh. You said I was a ‘loudmouth’. Something completely non sequituer to the discussion. A classic ad hom attack.
As for my ‘inferences’ being ‘unfounded’, you’ve yet to refute them as being ‘unfounded’.
So who is at a ‘loss’ here? Certainly not me. Bring forth your supporting evidence of the specific ‘unfounded inferences’.
RE: More ‘Proof’
As proof of my point I refer you to the current state of western civilization, as well as the historical states of similarly prosperous empires throughout history. — James Felix
Funny.
RE: Real Proof
You claim the proof I have already offered about what happened at Utoya or University of Virginia or the SLC shopping mall or Columbine HS—where my congregation lost several members—let alone how school teachers walk away from their in loco parentis charges, turning them over to rapacious murderers.
These are just more instances of how we’ve allowed for the murderers to take charge of our lives.
And you seem to support that.
Personally….
….I’m of a markedly differently mindset.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….]
I’m sure this exchange has been educational for everyone, but I think you guys can calm down now. Your views on the topic might not be as essential as you have been led to assume.
It’s possible that once the situation has cooled down and the Norwegian authorities start looking around for potential solutions for these mass shootings, they might not come to the United States first. In fact, as hard as this is to believe, they may never ask for any guidance at all from us on the subject.
It’s not true that only the cops and military have guns in Norway. However, civilians are required to keep their guns in a safe at home unless they are headed to a shooting range or a hunting area. To put it in perspective, Norway has a higher number of guns per capita than Canada. So, Norway has lots of guns, but none of them are readily available for self defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Historically mass shootings have occurred where the masses were not permitted to be armed. Like the Ft. Hood shooting, which occurred on US soil, the military personnel were disarmed because of where they worked. Title 18 prevents carry in Federal facilities. Numerous states also prohibit carry in government buildings. This places all of the employees and visitors at risk.
All of us need to write our congressional representatives to overturn the creation of weapons free zones. They are truly just another name for a safe place to commit a crime on unprotected persons. If more of our friends and family carried, we might be able to gain enough support to remove the blight of weapons free zones.
TO: All
RE: James Felix & Dishonest…
Interesting choice of words. Since you never answered any of my points I don’t see how we were having a discussion even prior to this. — James Felix
….debate.
Classic example of attempting to change the evidence provided. His ‘points’ didn’t address any of those questions I asked of him, vis-a-vis creds. And yet….
The bottom line is that you’re comfortable blaming children for being murdered and I’m not. — James Felix
….he attempts to twist the previous discussion to make ME the ‘murderer’. Whereas, if you recognize that being educated to be slain is a crime unto itself, the children are not the perps. Rather the people like James and those who teach defenselessness are the REAL perps.
Typical ‘progressive’ mentality.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren’t. Progressives won’t.]
P.S. Love the tag-on ad hom Parthian shot, about cooking skills. I wonder where he gets his herbs and spices. His cooking skills are probably on a par with Chef Boyardee.
Personally, I’d drag pasta and pesto into the field rather than eat C-rats. Sorry to be dating myself. Reminds me of an incident wherein my team was evaluating a Nebraska National Guard infantry battalion.
We’d been issued Hummers and drivers from the Fort Carson garrison to move us about on the battlefield. After a particular scenario, we met at a cross-roads and had lunch, while discussing what we had observed.
While most of us were opening our C-rats, the young drivers were looking at each other with perplexed expressions. Finally, the most senior of them asked, “Sirs. What are those?”
We all hung our heads…..
P.P.S. For herbs and spices and other seasonings in cooking, I recommend Penzeys.com.
TO: All
RE: NOW….
TO: All
RE: Now….
…..that the progressive element has withdrawn from the field, we can talk reality.
And YES, if an analysis was done, we’d notice that ‘gun free’ zones seem to be the proverbial ‘happy hunting ground’ for psychopaths.
How to eliminate that?
No such thinks as ‘gun free’ zones. Concealed and open carry is lawful EVERYWHERE!
Additionally, public education INCLUDES the proper and lawful use of deadly firearms and force. Something I and my comrades-in-arms—Third Brigade, 82d Airborne—were deeply immersed in before deployment to DC in April 1971, for the May Day Riots there.
If more people were educated properly, in Norway, this would not have happened.
But, if you fail to prepare you’re people for the reality of the REAL WORLD, this sort of slaughter is what you get.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you desire peace, prepare for war.]
“All of Norway is one great big “gun free zone.All of Norway is one great big “gun free zone.”
I live in Norway, and we have more guns per person then the USA. We are close to 5million ppl. and we have 1.3million handguns.
Cheap rate depends also along the took amount. Will you remain to think great deal and not think the
business? In which is all of the whole option. http://www.wikipedia.org
Comments are closed.