The Norwegian psycho claims that he acted in self-defense when he gunned down dozens of unarmed teenagers at a summer camp.
The real story is that the teenagers were denied the right to self-defense because there was not a rifle at the camp. One rifle could have saved dozens of lives, taken the scumbag out, and saved Norway the expense of the trial.
Norway killer admits massacre, claims self-defense
By KARL RITTER – 41 minutes ago
OSLO, Norway (AP) — A right-wing fanatic admitted Monday to unleashing a bomb-and-shooting massacre that killed 77 people in Norway but pleaded not guilty to criminal charges, saying he was acting in self-defense.
On the first day of his long-awaited trial, Anders Behring Breivik defiantly rejected the authority of the court as it sought to assign responsibility for the July 22 attacks that shocked Norway and jolted the image of terrorism in Europe.
Similarly, an English kid got killed by a Polar Bear in Norway last summer because no one in their group knew how to handle a rifle.
People can’t defend themselves from human and animal predators without a weapon. Norwegians understood this in the past.
Breivik sounds exactly like the 10:10 video people…
Good point!
God made man and woman, but Col. Samuel Colt made them equal.
There is a common thread between Breivik and the polar bear kids and it’s not self defence, it’s inflated confidence.
The polar bear camp felt safe because they had weapons, they were wrong for several reasons. Breivik felt safe to make his insane political point because he knew that a well armed, determined person could shoot a lot of people before anything interrupted. Even he was surprised how long he was allowed to rampage around the island. AFAIK there was an armed guard on the island, an off duty cop, who was the first person Breivik shot.
Yes, an island full of armed kids would have greatly reduced the overall toll from this single event but it wouldn’t necessarily reduce the number of shootings over a few years. How many more arguments would end up in serious blood shed?
Was the wild west safe because most men were armed all of the time? Would aviation be safer if every passenger was packing, or would the number of planes brought down, by accident or deliberately, increase? Are any of the well armed and primitive countries around the world safe because there are a lot of weapons?
You recently asked if students/kids were often the victims of mass shootings because the perpetrator knew they were defenceless. Well partly. Who wants their mass murder interrupted before it’s got off the ground? But another reason is that the shooter is often young and carrying out revenge on his contemporaries/tormentors. If all teachers were armed and able to take out these rogue kids then maybe they’d never happen but then again, maybe there’d be more kids killed when a teacher snaps?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/29/teacher-peter-harvey-pupil
For those who want to kill and don’t want to be killed there are any number of cowardly ways but the success rate isn’t that good (like Breivik’s bomb). For those who don’t care if they live or die, it’s almost impossible to stop them. It’s no coincidence that many of the mass killings end in suicide.
Whether everyone is armed or not, there will always be people who are more prepared to use violence than others. Someone intent on hurting another has the advantage of surprise. They’re psyched up to kill, their victims aren’t. Why do you think attacks within army bases are successful? Despite being armed and trained, most soldiers aren’t on a hair trigger to return fire. Those that are, are sometimes the ones that snap.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244917/British-security-guard-Daniel-Fitzsimons-faces-Iraq-court-shooting-dead-colleagues-drunken-row.html
Guns have their advantages but they’re not magic wands.