Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 90+ dead (3 Viewers)

[ZombieApocalypse]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Breivik is no where near that of a depraved insane individual.

Also, because he put so much effort into the day, he should have recorded the whole thing - i mean that would be truly fucking awesome

why would anyone want to watch that?

 

[Lolsmith]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

That's a very good point. Because it is such a common occurrence.

As is the occurrence of gun violence amongst normal individuals

ie:

The youths at the camp

Seriously, deregulation of weapons would have stopped this from being as bad as it was

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Hey RANK1 say your daughter hit another girl do you think she should be raped because she broke the law? I mean because only depraved individuals who are insane hit other people so that means she should be tortured

since when was hitting some1 on the same level as mowing down 80+ ppl and since when did u have to be "depraved individuals who are insane" to hit some1

 

[Cianyx]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Why

Because if you see a need to bring a gun to a youth camp, I really question the safety provided by the camp organisers or of society in general

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Yeh even if they were allowed weapons there wouldn't be any reason to take them to youth camp with them anyway.
Plus they were youths so even less likely to be permitted.

 

[jezzmo]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

As is the occurrence of gun violence amongst normal individuals

ie:

The youths at the camp

Seriously, deregulation of weapons would have stopped this from being as bad as it was

Imagine going to a political camp and feeling threatened to make a controversial statement, lest anyone get trigger rage - progression needs verbal conflict, not a fearful choir.

The sad fact of life is that many of the people who want weapons are the people who should not have them. They only have to lose control of their emotions once when equipped with the simplicity of a trigger. If just buddhists wanted to arm up, I'd be all for it.

Deregulation would have stopped this from being as bad as it was, but what this was is a tragic speck of dust and an anomalie.

 

[Lolsmith]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

since when was hitting some1 on the same level as mowing down 80+ ppl and since when did u have to be "depraved individuals who are insane" to hit some1

Because what you're saying is complete utter nonsense from a biased point of view so I did the exact same thing you just did and for some reason that's bad but your example is being strong and brave

Because if you see a need to bring a gun to a youth camp, I really question the safety provided by the camp organisers or of society in general

There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping yourself (and others) safe in a way that does not outwardly harm them. Who gives a fuck if this makes "society" or the camp organisers look unsafe. They were pretty unsafe judging by the amount of people who were murdered. You don't see that? You don't see that if one or more people had made (or had the ability to make) the decision to bring a firearm to protect their person, that scores of lives would have been saved? I'd prefer seeing a bunch of stable individuals who know the importance of gun safety walking around holding them instead of 80 corpses filled with holes.

 

[Lolsmith]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Imagine going to a political camp and feeling threatened to make a controversial statement, lest anyone get trigger rage - progression needs verbal conflict, not a fearful choir.

People are scared to speak their minds without the threat of weapons. I leave out important details of gun deregulation such as education on the fact that they're not toys to be messed around with (or used to silence opposition). I'm of the opinion that gun deregulation enhances the belief of the sanctity of life and that it shouldn't be messed with through that sort of education.

The sad fact of life is that many of the people who want weapons are the people who should not have them. They only have to lose control of their emotions once when equipped with the simplicity of a trigger. If just buddhists wanted to arm up, I'd be all for it.

There have been Buddhists who have armed themselves in a not-so-Buddhist way, but that's beside the point. I don't believe that disarming everyone because of a few bad apples is right. It's a reactionary way to make policy and it is a bad way to make policy.

Deregulation would have stopped this from being as bad as it was, but what this was is a tragic speck of dust and an anomalie.

I'm not saying that guns will solve all the issues. I'm saying taking the ability to defend yourself away from the normal, law-abiding citizen does nothing to help them. It only weakens them. It could have stopped this specific tragedy from occurring, but it could have stopped Virginia Tech as well. There are actual examples of situations not being as bad as they could have been due to students having weapons to stop it happening.

Whilst Norway does have a fairly lax set of rules on gun ownership, it's mostly for recreational purposes (hunting, etc.).

 

[jezzmo]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

I know in most cases, banning things just doesn't work, but imo, Australia does not have a significant gun problem, nor does Norway, and such rare incidences should not scare the everyday citizen into thinking they need a gun to defend themselves from 'the inevitable' or 'the likely'. For all intents and purposes, at this point in current times in our society - YOU ARE NOT GOING TO NEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH A GUN EVER. You are ridiculously more likely to hurt someone you know, overreact to a situation, successfully commit suicide or lose it into the underworld than to ever use it effectively in a situation that saves you or people around you.

edit: i'm not against gun ownership itself, I'm against carrying them around in everyday situations. I am against the mentality that we need to. I am against a society that feels it needs to live in fear, because of the unlikely. Because we don't. We are a fucking safe community.

 

[Lolsmith]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

I don't think that's what it means (@ the safe community thing). I don't see someone carrying something to defend themselves, in a very unlikely situation yes, as a sign of an unsafe community. There are criminals yes, but they are a small portion of the population. I've never alluded otherwise. What I think is unfair is that criminals are empowered by current legislation. Disarming a population of innocent, harmless and psychologically sound individuals doesn't help them. From what I've read, guns are a *visual* deterrent more than an actual physical stopping power.

 

[Blastus]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Jesus those blog posts are horrific.

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Because what you're saying is complete utter nonsense from a biased point of view so I did the exact same thing you just did and for some reason that's bad but your example is being strong and brave

i dont get what r saying, so basically it's just madman's logic to think that this person deserves to die or at the very least get the shit beaten out of him.

bit hypocritical seeing as u r arguing that if every1 was allowed guns the youths in norway wouldnt have mowed down. ur argument implies that we shud use lethal force in self-defense which is the same thing as saying we should kill the guy.

 

[jezzmo]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

i dont get what r saying, so basically it's just madman's logic to think that this person deserves to die or at the very least get the shit beaten out of him.

bit hypocritical seeing as u r arguing that if every1 was allowed guns the youths in norway wouldnt have mowed down. ur argument implies that we shud use lethal force in self-defense which is the same thing as saying we should kill the guy.

Self-defence and retribution are two .. vaguely different terms.

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

Self-defence and retribution are two .. vaguely different terms.

results the same, and say if u had a gun and you saw this man shot some of your friends. there's going to be retribution

 

[jezzmo]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

results the same, and say if u had a gun and you saw this man shot some of your friends. there's going to be retribution

Self-defence you are mitigating the situation.
Retribution you are adding to it.

If someone shot my friends unprovoked and I had the ability, in the heat of the moment yes I would probably tear them apart.

But there is nothing hypocritical about arguing for self-defence and against retribution.

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

now remind me agian why u ppl are against retribution

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

now remind me agian why u ppl are against retribution

jesus fuck because it achieves nothing except satiating bloodlust, as opposed to preventing them killing more people

 

[Azure]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

now remind me agian why u ppl are against retribution

Because it is stupid and there are proper debates to be had about issues where a positive contribution can be made to humanity.

 

[RANK 1]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

jesus fuck because it achieves nothing except satiating bloodlust, as opposed to preventing them killing more people

killing them prevents them from killing more ppl...

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Re: Massive terrorist attacks in Norway, over 30+ dead

killing them prevents them from killing more ppl...

as does life in gaol