Trying not to get insane over the mass killing of kids in Norway this weekend. Norway has a world-wide reputation for peace and tranquility. The systematic murder of nearly 100 people by a single gunman staggers my imagination.

For all that is wrong with the USA, we guarantee and maintain the individual right of any law-abiding adult to protect himself ~ with a firearm if necessary. Having to shoot another human being is a traumatic experience which you will never outlive. But watching one un-opposed shooter slowly waltz thru crowds of unarmed kids (and one unarmed security guard) certainly makes me wish I could have been there to do SOMETHING to stop him.

Norway disarmed their populace. That means only criminals and cops have firearms. In this case, it was a criminal disguised as a cop. The citizens are at the mercy of their government to protect them in crisis situations. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away (in this case, "only" 90 minutes away).

I find it horrific that more than 84 kids died on that tiny island, because nobody (where were the adults?) had a weapon capable of neutralizing this treat. It took the cops more than an hour and a half to reach the island. Their excuse was that they couldn't find a boat big enough to take them all to the island together. (WELL? HOW ABOUT 2 or 3 OF YOU AT A TIME??) It reminds me of the sorry Columbine school response a few years ago.

If Norway is truly a peaceful nation, the introduction of privately owned firearms for self-defense shouldn't change that. Even a single firearm in the hands of a free Norwegian could have made a huge difference on that tiny island.

_________________
1970 240Z

As has been completely and unequivocally proven here in the United States, the introduction of privately owned firearms into Norway would result in MANY more Norwegian deaths from firearms than they now experience. What just just happened in Norway was a freak occurrence. Here in the United States, thousands of people are killed with "self defense" firearms every year. Less than ten percent of firearms killings are adjudged to have been justifiable homicides. The killings in Norway can't hold a candle to what goes on here in this country due to the pervasive presence of firearms.The statistics are very clear:Norwegians have far less chance of being killed by a firearm than Americans. Our "armed citizenry" not only doesn't improve the safety of Americans, it makes firearms deaths here far more likely than in any other industrial country in the world. How much more likely? The latest statistics say that gun-related homicides rates in the US are TWENTY to THIRTY FIVE times as high as in other politically and economically similar industrial countries (like Norway) .
Less that a hundred Norwegians perished in that freak occurrence. More than 6000 Americans were murdered with firearms last year. Many thousands more were killed by accident or by suicide with firearms.
The idea that arming the populace adds to its safety and/or security is easily and emphatically proven to be wrong with just a few minutes of research on the Web. It's a groundless, laughable fallacy that costs thousands of innocent American lives EVERY year. When you get done mourning for the 97 dead Norwegians, start mourning for the 6000 dead Americans. And please stop encouraging Americans to arm themselves and thus make things worse. It's a nice fantasy but it is FACTUALLY PROVEN FALSE.

_________________
71 on a rotisserie, two more in pieces in my shed...and a 69 1600 waiting for me to get to it

Hi Mark! I absolutely KNEW I'd hear from you . We've had this argument before, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. We disagree, plain and simple, and I remain convinced your 'statistics' are faulty because of the way in which the are collected/classified, and they deal only with numbers instead of percentage of population. I have personally investigated about 3,000 suicides in 25yrs and the number of suicides by firearm was surprisingly low. Hanging was far and away more prevalent. So my own experience certainly doesn't support your theory. And you've heard me argue that if someone intends to take his/her own life, the presence or absence of a firearm will not change that. There are certainly myriad other means of getting the job done.

And if you care to count the number of homicides Norway (or Japan, or England, or Australia, or Canada, or any other DISARMED country) experienced by other means, I'm confident you'd be rather surprised at the numbers. People kill each other. They have, since Cain slew Able.

The mere presence of a firearm is usually sufficient deterrent to prevent further violence ~ but you don't get to study THOSE numbers, because you were only focusing on actual shootings.

But be that as it may, you (you) have to deal with the FACT that you live in the last country in the free world which permits its citizens to protect themselves and own firearms for purposes NOT related to hunting or military duty. That says a lot about our people ~ we place personal safety and the RIGHT to defend ourselves above the archaic idea that government is our surrogate parent and in charge of our safety. We can all see what that idea led to in this case.

My point remains that if a single trained person on that island had been free to carry a firearm for protection (not hunting), this madman could have been stopped early-on and many many lives could have been spared. In fact, the madman might have thought twice about taking that chance in the first place ~ you notice that as soon as other armed personnel arrived, he gave up? I tend to think if he learned someone else on the island was armed, this scenario might have been very different.

The citizens of Norway must now live with the consideration of what their government is capable of doing for them, and what it's not. Those kids fled this assassin for 90 minutes, waiting for help. Other adults were fewer than 200 yards away (on the mainland), heard the shooting, heard the screaming, heard the cries for help, but did nothing. Nobody else had a gun ~ only the bad guy.

I wish there was a way you could get statistics about the number of massacres which DIDN'T happen, simply because the madman knew other Americans were armed and that he wouldn't survive the event.

In the small District of Columbia, there are more concentrated police agencies than anywhere else in the USA. It's the headquarters for every federal cop shop in the country. The DC Park Police, Transit Police, and city cops add to those armed federal agencies. DC has the highest per-capita concentration of armed police officers in the USA. Additionally, up until this year, DC had an ABSOLUTE, TOTAL PRIVATE WEAPONS BAN. If you lived in DC and weren't a cop, it was illegal to own a firearm, period. You couldn't get a permit without a badge.

In Vermont, if you have a valid VT drivers license and haven't been convicted of a crime, you can conceal a loaded pistol on your person ANYWHERE within state jurisdiction. Everyone knows that.

I guess you know where I'm going with this ~ DC had the nation's HIGHEST homicide rate (many years running) and VT had the nation's LOWEST homicide rate (many years running).

I say "HAD" because just this year the Supreme Court overturned all those individual city weapons bans (Chicago, New York, DC), and now the crooks and bad guys will be dealing with armed citizens instead of unarmed sheeple. So the statistics are almost guaranteed to change. The reversal also applies to national parks and most colleges.

Yes, my friend, I will certainly continue to encourage, recommend and enthusiastically urge citizens who are important to me, to become proficient with a firearm and to safely keep one for their own protection. In the terrible long minutes (or hours) between the time they are first confronted with a life-threatening danger and the time the police arrive (if there is even time to call them), that gives that free citizen an equal say in who will survive the encounter.

Ben Franklin likened a disarmed citizenry to "Two wolves and a sheep, debating what to have for lunch". He likened an armed citizenry to "The sheep contesting the vote".

I'm pretty amazed at the number of homeowners who have never had a house or car fire, but who have the common sense to have fire extinguishers in their homes and cars, "just in case".

But when asked if they own a firearm, they reply no, because they "don't hunt and have never experienced a life-threatening situation".
That tells me they place a higher value on their property than on their lives. They are willing to take precautions to save their car or house, but not their own life or the lives of their family.

And Mark, I respect your decision NOT to own a gun. That's your choice. You're an experienced man of the world who has seen a lot (including combat) and has decided not to arm himself. But you live in a country which allows its citizens to decide otherwise. You must (must) respect THEIR choices, as well. In a free country, it's not mandatory that EVERY citizen exercise the right to arm himself, but it is absolutely vital that SOME do.

I'm pretty confident a canvass of the parents of those abandoned, forsaken, murdered kids would sound pretty supportive of free gun rights about now.

Frank

_________________
1970 240Z

It was an awful tradegy, that guy was a lunatic. We here have very strict gun laws, you cant get a hunting rifle without being a member of a hunting club for at least 2 years, you HAVE to have medical papers that you are sane person, you have to answer 267 questions for police, you have to have a hunting licence (for which you have to read a book and pass a test). That might take weeks BUT in that way we have keep the loonies away from weapons. Also when you have bought the weapon, you must take it to police station for inspection. Also you have to renew your licence every 5 years. There is 2 sad examples of failures though. Gun laws have become even more strict after them. It's almost impossible to normal people to get handguns, which is good.

I'll sleep my nights well knowing that any of my neighbours dont have a gun.

_________________
240zgoldie.blogspot.com

OK, but you have loonies there, just like every country has. And today you are young and strong and probably able to defend your home and family from......whatever.

But when you are 55 or 60 or 65 and your drunk, loonie neighbor breaks into your house at night, trying to kill someone with a knife or a hammer or a chainsaw (or a stolen gun), what will you use to prevent that? Remember, you're asleep, wearing pajamas and bare feet, and you're old. He's dressed, wearing boots, and he's awake and armed.

The answer is, you hope you can call the police, and hope they're close enough (and not too busy) to get to you before this guy eats too many of your family members. You are completely at the mercy of your government. You don't have the right to protect yourself or your home. You have to ask permission. Is that fair? Is that even logical?

Those kids on the island had to have their government's permission to remain alive last Friday. You can call it a 'freak occurrence' if you want to, but how much consolation do you think that is for the parents of those murdered kids? "Oh well, a madman killed my babies because we can't defend ourselves, but it only happened once". I'm sorry guys, I'm really angry about this. I simply can't justify any government telling its people, "we'll decide when you can get protected from all threats, and while you wait for us to arrive, you have to endure whatever happens to you or your loved ones".

I'd like to know the numbers of Norwegians who immigrate to the USA, as opposed to the number of Americans who immigrate to Norway.

And Rev, you might sleep even better with a revolver on your bedside table.

_________________
1970 240Z

Yes, there is difference between worlds here. Changes of being assaulted in own home here is very little. There is fights between drug addicts and alcoholics and those who want to fight. I honestly dont know any case here where someone with gun has attacked someone innocent, if not counting 2 school massacres with 18 victims (both were done with .22 caliber guns, most easily available then, but not anymore) but thats all i know. Because there is no guns available.

Maybe there is a difference in that every man here has to go to military and see what damage guns can make. Im not trying to turn anyones head here, i'll just give another view how to look at these things.

_________________
240zgoldie.blogspot.com

Guns don't cause damage ~ people cause damage. Just like a nailgun, a chainsaw or a skillsaw, a gun is a tool. Misuse of tools by people causes damage.

_________________
1970 240Z

Yes, but people with guns cause even more damage. I rather see maniacs with jigsaw than loonies with desert eagle. But thats just me.

_________________
240zgoldie.blogspot.com

My feeling is that if you ban guns and make them illegal to own and/or carry, then you can be certain that the only ones with guns will be "law breakers" by default. Do you really want to arm ONLY the "law breakers"?

Banning something, does NOT make it go away.

Follow my logic?

_________________
-Dave
76Z Turbo'd
72 In Progress---DONE!

Exactly. People will get what they want no matter what, all that determines this is their drive to do so. Look at the problem with the drug trade, lol. You really think that banning guns in this country would stop gun violence? The problem lies within the culture, not the commodities.

_________________


-Chris

A gun is a tool? Like my table saw? A gun is a weapon. It is specifically designed to make it ridiculously easy to kill another person. When used according to its design and intended purpose, that is what it's doing. A tool is something you use to create, a gun is designed to destroy. Less than 10% of shootings in this country are justified. If table saws were lethal 90% of the time they were misused, I wouldn't have a problem restricting their sale either, and I use one every day.
The reason that the high gun crime rate in washington continues in spite of their restrictive gun laws is that it is too easy for people to obtain them elsewhere. Until this problem is solved, there won't be any statistical results of any meaning coming from these areas. But if we look at other countries (like Norway or Finland) that have effectively prevented widespread firearm ownership, the statistics are overwhelmingly clear, to the point that it's ridiculous to claim that the studies are not valid: the more firearms the public has, the more people get killed. The ease with which a drunken, enraged, convicted or insane person can get their hands on a gun means that more people die. Your worship of gun rights and insistence that they remain available to the public at large costs tens of thousands of American lives every year, and forces people like me to live in fear every time we leave the safety of our own homes. The statistics are clear, overwhelming, and compiled and reviewed by scientists. You cannot repudiate them with uninformed opinion, anecdotal evidence, or strange fantasies of self defense in unlikely scenarios. Americans kill Americans by the thousands every year and it has been scientifically proven that there would be thousands less dead if guns were properly regulated. Please don't try to quote our founding fathers to defend your position; they possessed a great deal of common sense and if they could have seen the civilian carnage that results from modern firearms in the hands of the population at large, there is no way they would have insisted that it should continue. The situation in this country is many times worse than it is in Norway, and the failure of gun nuts to respect the scientific findings of trained social scientists is shameful.

_________________
71 on a rotisserie, two more in pieces in my shed...and a 69 1600 waiting for me to get to it

One piece has not come out so far, and it may be the piece that
troubles me as much as any other:

Let's say I own a registered firearm and am proficient in its use. Whether I
do or not, is not the question. Possible situation, similar maybe to
what happened in Cheshire a couple of years ago: Armed intruder
breaks into my house. In defense of Kathy and myself, I shoot the
armed intruder. Result #1: I kill the armed intruder and I am now
the bad guy who gets sent off to prison. Result #2: I seriously
wound the armed intruder, who uses hospital and public resources
in his recovery; I am now the recipient of a lawsuit in the amount
of thousands, if not millions of dollars because of what I caused him.

If he had kept his rotten oculi off my property to begin with, none of
this would have happened. But because I, as a law-abiding citizen,
at home and minding my own business, got intruded upon by some
cucuzza with a gun, I end up paying the price, and not him.

That's our justice system for you.
Or should I say, "Where's the justice?"
~Rick~

_________________
All Z Best,.......Kathy & Rick

1969 Z.CAR (#00013 10/69) 8/30/76
1969 ITSA.Z (#00171 11/69) 8/24/73
1970 OLD.Z (#06289 6/70) original owner
1971 510 2dr since 12/31/75
1969 1600 rdstr (our 160-Z)
1971 (#19851 1/71) sold
1975 75.Z (#01343 1/75)

Sorry, but I do have to refer to our founding fathers. Their unanimous support of individual firearms ownership was voiced not only for self defense, but for providing our citizens with the means to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical. I apologize for saying this to you, Mark, because i know your learned background and recognize your full awareness of Constitutional law. No offense intended, I'm simply raising the point to validate my argument.

Those "safe" countries in which the citizens can't own guns are forever at the mercy of their governments, good or bad. Unless they revolt (which is really tough when only the government has firearms), they pretty much live with the conditions their King gives them. "He who has the guns, makes the laws". Egypt recently overthrew their 40yr ruler without firing a shot. Some of them were killed by their own police, but when the revolt was over, their military took over the country. Conditions are reported as worse now than they were under the King. The unarmed population can do nothing about it. They have gone from the frying pan into the fire.

If for no other reason, arming the populace of the United States is VITAL to remaining a free country, in which the government works for US, rather than we being serfs for them.

If a few thousand of us die each year due to our own clumsy mishandling of those tools of freedom, that's just one more price of freedom (and ineptitude).

And i must disagree with your definition of a firearm. It's not a 'weapon' unless / until it's used as one. It is nothing more than a tool or a "machine" which, in trained hands, is capable of reliably throwing a specific chunk of lead and brass over a predictable trajectory for a known distance. It can be used to punch holes in paper, kill game, predators or pests, or yes, if the situation merits, stop another human being from committing a vicious unlawful act.

Responsible human beings own firearms for responsible reasons. Dangerous and irresponsible human beings possess dangerous instruments of all types, for evil reasons. We can theorize and philosophize until we're blue in the face, and as I've told you before, you're a convincing debater. But the fact is, when all the moralistic hyperbole has been shouted, and bad guys are still trying to kill someone you love, words and idealism won't stop them. In that instant (when the cops are minutes away) your ideals will come crashing down around you and hard core reality will raise its ugly head ~ you either need Divine Intervention or a gun.

There are plenty of countries around the world whose governments don't trust their citizens with firearms. If those people are happy with that, they stay there. Hopefully they live long lives without ever realizing the need for a firearm, because if they ever really need one, it simply won't be available and they will have to endure the consequences.

This country guarantees our citizens the RIGHT to own and carry personal guns. In any setting in America, you can encounter responsible, educated, peaceful, rational citizens who happen to be carrying a gun for their personal protection. They aren't whiskey-swilling, loud, boisterous swaggering irresponsible troublemakers, nor anyone you should fear. They just want to live a peaceful, quiet life but are prepared to fend off threats to themselves and their families if all else fails.

Again, if any prepared adult had been present on that island, a lot of innocent kids might still be alive today.

_________________
1970 240Z

Frank,
I happen to agree with you but I believe we are looking at the issue from a biased point of view. I have been familiar with guns all my life and still own a few. But the thought of Joe average American walking around with a 9 millimeter scares the hell out of me. He is the same guy two feet off your back bumper talking on his cell at 65 MPH and flips you off when you pull over to let him by. Unfortunately there is no easy answer for this one but it’s good that we can all talk about it.

Hi Rick. If someone breaks into your home and threatens your life, you're not going to prison for defending yrslf. The penalty for breaking and entering (or theft) is not death, so if you shot him to prevent stealing, YES, you're wrong and should go to prison. In the USA, the only justification for taking a life is to prevent the imminent threat of someone using a force or means likely to produce grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, you can't legally shoot someone out of anger or outrage ~ only out of mortal fear for your life or the life of another innocent, when all other means would fail or have failed.

HOWEVER ~ bear in mind that your home is your castle, and until the cops arrive, YOU are the law. You can certainly stop someone from taking your belongings. If they flee, let them go and let the cops catch them. If they turn on you, situation #1 applies. The State's Attorney would not prosecute any homeowner for defending his life or the lives of his family.

As far as lawsuits go, anybody can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean they would prevail. The degree of reasonableness would be weighed by rational people and I doubt you could be held liable for any damages the perp brought upon himself. Remember, HE came to YOU, and took the risk of something bad happening to him by his actions.

Your biggest lawsuit liability might be that Honey slobbered all over his brand-new Felony Flyer Nikes!!

_________________
1970 240Z