Oslo bombed

SharpshooterTom · 23-07-2011 04:12AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

It didn't though. That's the thing. It bore none of the hallmarks of an Islamic extremist attack. Sky and CBS and chums wheeled out a couple of "experts" who suggested as much, but beyond the fact that it was a bomb, it had barely any resemblance at all even to my uneducated eye. It was at the wrong time and in the wrong place and it was wrong type of bombing; there were always far more likely suspects from the get-go, and Norway's scuffles with pockets of right wing extremism are well known.

Because there were multiple bombings similar to previous al-qaeda attacks in europe. Bin Laden is dead, and al-qaeda vowed to attack so obviously people were assuming the number suspect was al-qaeda, I did too. Stockholm suffered a bomb attack last year from islamic fundementalists, so I understood why people why suspected it.

Duggy747 · 23-07-2011 04:14AM

amacachi wrote: »

America has a massive population which is easy to forget. And again, do those shootings happen where other people are armed or in "gun free" areas?

Like malls, offices, and public gatherings?

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:17AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Like malls, offices, and public gatherings?

The most recent one we would've heard about was one of those things where everyone asked "how many liberal fcuks were there that no-one had a gun to stop him!?". Even then he was stopped by a bystander because he tried to fcuk off early because he shat himself the whole way through.

dfx- · 23-07-2011 04:18AM

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not talkin about police. In about 43 states you can carry a concealed gun no problem once you have a permit. But if a store has a certain sign then you can't take it in there. Where will be robbed, the place that people who are could be armed or the place where someone is beaking the law by carrying a gun?

I don't see what difference it would make. The owners of every shop could be armed, whether they allow customers have arms or not. Because there's a sign that no weapons are allowed doesn't mean that store is easier or more likely to be robbed.

What I would wager is that if both owners and robbers are allowed guns, the probability that an attempted robbery becomes a murder rises exponentially.

Duggy747 · 23-07-2011 04:22AM

amacachi wrote: »

The most recent one we would've heard about was one of those things where everyone asked "how many liberal fcuks were there that no-one had a gun to stop him!?". Even then he was stopped by a bystander because he tried to fcuk off early because he shat himself the whole way through.

Ah, the whole thing of where people should be armed could go on forever. I don't want to go into that.

I'm just speechless at today's scenario. It's above and beyond the average shooting spree we're used to hearing about.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:22AM

dfx- wrote: »

I don't see what difference it would make. The owners of every shop could be armed, whether they allow customers have arms or not. Because there's a sign that no weapons are allowed doesn't mean that store is easier or more likely to be robbed.

What I would wager is that if both owners and robbers are allowed guns, the probability that an attempted robbery becomes a murder rises exponentially.

If there's an officicial sign saying "no arms" then the only people observe it are the law-abiding ones. The shopkeepers know that so don't do it because it sets a target saying "No-one here is armed" because even the store-owner can't be or face a 5 year BS sentence for illegal possession. Read around over the next while and you'll see how decent people being armed stops more things you might hear about from happening.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 23-07-2011 04:24AM

amacachi, are you saying that there would be less shootings if more people carried guns?

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:25AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Ah, the whole thing of where people should be armed could go on forever. I don't want to go into that.

I'm just speechless at today's scenario. It's above and beyond the average shooting spree we're used to hearing about.

Honestly, if it were possible to keep weapons away from those who shouldn't have them then brilliant, I'd be up for that. It's not possible though and over the few years we'll ever come to realise it in this country. I'd rather have an option to defend myself above anything else, however unlikely. I't's not logical but when it comes to very specific morality and moral relativism very little is :P

PseudoFamous · 23-07-2011 04:26AM

amacachi wrote: »

If there's an officicial sign saying "no arms" then the only people observe it are the law-abiding ones. The shopkeepers know that so don't do it because it sets a target saying "No-one here is armed" because even the store-owner can't be or face a 5 year BS sentence for illegal possession. Read around over the next while and you'll see how decent people being armed stops more things you might hear about from happening.

I'm afraid to say that you're completely wrong. An incident which occured about a kilometer and a half away from me was caused by a shopkeeper confronting a knife wielding robber, with a knife. This ended in two people with a knife, and the shopkeeper, father of two young children, being murdered over €50. Adding additional arms would not help, it would just cause more murders.

jive · 23-07-2011 04:30AM

Let me be the first to say;

What a cúnt.

This is just another reason why guns should be legal and controlled. Gun laws just mean that the baddies will get them and the goodies will be sitting ducks. Prohibition doesn't work.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:30AM

Mara Loud Cornmeal wrote: »

amacachi, are you saying that there would be less shootings if more people carried guns?

Ah, the good old uber liberal bit of boards coming out right there.

Of course I'm not fcuking saying that, just that many would be (in my eyes) justified and plenty would be snuffed out before more than a couple of people are affected. Again context is important (and I'm too drunk for this) but where to the US shootings we generally hear about happen? Schools. Where people break the law to do it. You think if all those people in Columbine could've had a weapon that those two pieces of **** would've gone as long as they did? Of course not. Check out how many shop robberies are stopped by customers in the US.

I'd love to live in a world where people don't have guns but that's never going to happen and for as long as it's not going to happen it's better that decent, law-abiding people should be allowed to defend themselves, their loves ones and their property.

PseudoFamous · 23-07-2011 04:32AM

amacachi wrote: »

Check out how many shop robberies are stopped by customers in the US

That's a very tricky thing to check out, but I suspect the number vs. robberies committed would be low. If you can prove otherwise, I'd gladly eat my words.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:32AM

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I'm afraid to say that you're completely wrong. An incident which occured about a kilometer and a half away from me was caused by a shopkeeper confronting a knife wielding robber, with a knife. This ended in two people with a knife, and the shopkeeper, father of two young children, being murdered over €50. Adding additional arms would not help, it would just cause more murders.

That's perception, you (and I as it happens) wouldn't risk your life for that amount, he decided he would. You can blame the knife but one really has to draw a line somewhere and I think that example goes beyond where I would set it.

jive · 23-07-2011 04:34AM

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I'm afraid to say that you're completely wrong. An incident which occured about a kilometer and a half away from me was caused by a shopkeeper confronting a knife wielding robber, with a knife. This ended in two people with a knife, and the shopkeeper, father of two young children, being murdered over €50. Adding additional arms would not help, it would just cause more murders.

Why? Who's to say the shopkeeper wouldn't have tried to fight him off anyway?

People who want guns will get them, typically only 'bad' people will take the risk due to it being illegal. Guns should be controlled and there should be stringent testing to see who is allowed to bear arms and who isn't.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:34AM

PseudoFamous wrote: »

That's a very tricky thing to check out, but I suspect the number vs. robberies committed would be low. If you can prove otherwise, I'd gladly eat my words.

It's low because when I saw "stopped" I mean "the scumbag is shot in the back of the head" and for some reason (can't imagine why :P ) the media don't see it as a good thing. Way more are prevented though (like I was saying earlier) by the fact that loads of people are carrying guns. There'll always be those who don't give a **** but most robberies in the US are 1-on-1 (in retail premises) or on empty properties.

dfx- · 23-07-2011 04:39AM

amacachi wrote: »

Of course not. Check out how many shop robberies are stopped by customers in the US.

Would it compare to the number of customers caught in crossfire or who became accidental killers or who were killed in a gunfight trying to stop a robbery?

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:40AM

Long story made short, guns are like drugs, people want them and will get them. Make them illegal and the people who get them are people who don't care about the law while the rest of us are left holding out cocks.

jill_valentine · 23-07-2011 04:41AM

People who carry firearms are significantly more likely to get shot and killed than those who don't, even allowing for mitigating factors like local crime rates. And in the meantime, your gun will be about thirty times more likely to kill a friend or family member than it is to kill an intruder or attacker.

For every justifiable gun homicide reported, there are hundreds and hundreds of accidental injuries, heat-of-the-moment murders and bad mood suicides that wouldn't otherwise have occurred. Gun proliferation doesn't make anybody safer, it just makes gun owners feel safer at a cost to wider society.

But this, perhaps, is a battle for another day.

In the meantime:

Gnobe wrote: »

Because there were multiple bombings similar to previous al-qaeda attacks in europe. Bin Laden is dead, and al-qaeda vowed to attack so obviously people were assuming the number suspect was al-qaeda, I did too. Stockholm suffered a bomb attack last year from islamic fundementalists, so I understood why people why suspected it.

I can understand why Joe Internet might suspect it on a gut level, but those dudes get paid to go on TV and talk about international terrorism with authority. The Oslo bombing didn't bear any resemblance to previous Islamic attack form in Europe, and the second word broke of a related attack on the island they should have copped that it was something very different.

Sky wrote its narrative in advance and continued to editorialise in its support until it was impossible to continue doing so, because they never even considered an alternative. Islamic terrorists were a possibility initially, but one that became quite rapidly more remote.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:41AM

dfx- wrote: »

Would it compare to the number of customers caught in crossfire or who became accidental killers or who were killed in a gunfight trying to stop a robbery?

I'd rather have the chance to even the odds.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:43AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

People who carry firearms are significantly more likely to get shot and killed than those who don't, even allowing for mitigating factors like local crime rates. And in the meantime, your gun will be about thirty times more likely to kill a friend or family member than it is to kill an intruder or attacker.

Stats please. Like I said, would be great if there were no guns but the US is the only "developed" country to base anything on and there's more guns than people there. I'm extremely anti-guns and anti-violence but if I were there I'd get a gun as soon as I could since every fcukin low-life can pick one up illegally.

Corsendonk · 23-07-2011 04:45AM

amacachi wrote: »

Ah, the good old uber liberal bit of boards coming out right there.

Of course I'm not fcuking saying that, just that many would be (in my eyes) justified and plenty would be snuffed out before more than a couple of people are affected. Again context is important (and I'm too drunk for this) but where to the US shootings we generally hear about happen? Schools. Where people break the law to do it. You think if all those people in Columbine could've had a weapon that those two pieces of **** would've gone as long as they did? Of course not. Check out how many shop robberies are stopped by customers in the US.

I'd love to live in a world where people don't have guns but that's never going to happen and for as long as it's not going to happen it's better that decent, law-abiding people should be allowed to defend themselves, their loves ones and their property.

So are you looking for us to join the states? How many people are killed every year in robberies in Ireland? If a person is crazy enough they will figure a way to kill people even if they have a house full of guns to protect yourself.

Everytime something like this happens you always get the right to defend oneself argument, all that means is that its easier to steal guns.

Duggy747 · 23-07-2011 04:49AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I can understand why Joe Internet might suspect it on a gut level, but those dudes get paid to go on TV and talk about international terrorism with authority. The Oslo bombing didn't bear any resemblance to previous Islamic attack form in Europe, and the second word broke of a related attack on the island they should have copped that it was something very different.

There have been plenty and plenty of attacks like this around Europe and as close as Russia.

Stockholm, December 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11977524

Attempted Glasgow car bomb
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8472906/video/75220252-glasgow-car-bomb--raw-video

I could go on but I'm not arsed searching for more links. They happened which is why I don't blame people for initially thinking of Islamic extremists being responsible.

You're assuming everyone takes agencies like Sky News as if they're the gospel.

randylonghorn · 23-07-2011 04:51AM

amacachi wrote: »

Gonna sound like a redneck hick but coming back to read that one guy with a gun took out 80 people? Every one of us should be fcuking armed. I just can't believe that, anything I say the rest of the night will make no sense because i'm in shock

Making guns readily available will also mean that guys like this, and even those with extreme views but maybe without this guys organisational skills, will also be able to get guns readily.

amacachi wrote: »

All the shootings we hear about here are shootings in areas where people can't have guns. Read American laws and ask where's going to get robbed, the place where people can't take guns into or the place where everyone's armed.

And were the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Appomattox, Tucson and Grand Rapids massacres all in areas where guns were not readily available?

Unfortunately, the US with its second amendment right to bear arms has seen as many if nor more of these kind of killing sprees.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:53AM

Corsendonk wrote: »

So are you looking for us to join the states? How many people are killed every year in robberies in Ireland? If a person is crazy enough they will figure a way to kill people even if they have a house full of guns to protect yourself.

Everytime something like this happens you always get the right to defend oneself argument, all that means is that its easier to steal guns.

Again, while everything is "fine here" then no-one should have guns. There's a lot more guns around than most people would this and I want to have the chance to defend myself legally.

While statistics are awesome (and I genuinely love them) I would still right now sooner have a gun than not have one. I think it's an infringement for it to be illegal for law to be made whose only justification is "it's for your own good".

Corsendonk · 23-07-2011 04:54AM

Some stats

Murders with firearms (most recent) by country

# 1

South Africa:31,918
# 2

Colombia:21,898
# 3

Thailand:20,032
# 4

United States:9,369
# 5

Philippines:7,708
# 6

Mexico:2,606
# 7

Slovakia:2,356
# 8

El Salvador:1,441
# 9

Zimbabwe:598
# 10

Peru:442
# 11

Germany:269
# 12

Czech Republic:181
# 13

Ukraine:173
# 14

Canada:144
# 15

Albania:135
# 16

Costa Rica:131
# 17

Azerbaijan:120
# 18

Poland:111
# 19

Uruguay:109
# 20

Spain:97
# 21

Portugal:90
# 22

Croatia:76
# 23

Switzerland:68
# 24

Bulgaria:63
# 25

Australia:59
# 26

Sweden:58
# 27

Bolivia:52
# 28

Japan:47
# 29

Slovenia:39
= 30

Hungary:38
= 30

Belarus:38
# 32

Latvia:28
# 33

Burma:27
# 34

Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of:26
# 35

Austria:25
# 36

Estonia:21
# 37

Moldova:20
# 38

Lithuania:16
= 39

United Kingdom:14
= 39

Denmark:14
# 41

Ireland:12
# 42

New Zealand:10
# 43

Chile:9
# 44

Cyprus:4
# 45

Morocco:1
= 46

Iceland:0
= 46

Luxembourg:0
= 46

Oman:0

Corsendonk · 23-07-2011 04:58AM

amacachi wrote: »

Again, while everything is "fine here" then no-one should have guns. There's a lot more guns around than most people would this and I want to have the chance to defend myself legally.

While statistics are awesome (and I genuinely love them) I would still right now sooner have a gun than not have one. I think it's an infringement for it to be illegal for law to be made whose only justification is "it's for your own good".

Surprisely given your love of stats and wish to have a gun if you look at the countries near the top of the list of countries with gun deaths that I posted they are countries that guns are freely available in. So looser gun control more deaths.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 04:58AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

Making guns readily available will also mean that guys like this, and even those with extreme views but maybe without this guys organisational skills, will also be able to get guns readily.

It still evens up the odds that if you have a gun you have a chance.

And were the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Appomattox, Tucson and Grand Rapids massacres all in areas where guns were not readily available?

Unfortunately, the US with its second amendment right to bear arms has seen as many if nor more of these kind of killing sprees.

Like I said the US is unique because it's the only "developed country" to study yet it's also ridiculously stupid.
What I was saying though, Columbine and Virginia Tech were both "gun-free" areas. Again, look it up, most shootings happen in "gun-free" areas. We've all seen those pieces of **** walking around lording it over people. If any of those few hundred people had a gun in their sock then we may not have even heard about it. Instead they stupidly obeyed the local law and it was the people who didn't give a **** about the (very liberal gun) law who fcuked **** up.

Also when it comes to the US I love how the 3% of killings that involve nice white people are the ones that people discuss, not the 90% of gun killings where it's just some ****** who no-one cares about. Sure they're black, there's dozens killed every night, who cares.

amacachi · 23-07-2011 05:01AM

Corsendonk wrote: »

Surprisely given your love of stats and wish to have a gun if you look at the countries near the top of the list of countries with gun deaths that I posted they are countries that guns are freely available in. So looser gun control more deaths.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Like I said it's very hard to make an argument either way since the US is the only country to look at and once should bear in mind that most of those murders are gang-related. Kind of like how London had a huge reduction in gun crime while the murder rate went up. People are always going to be stupid.

EDIT: Is it just me who notices that other than the US and Canada those are countries where the recognition of law are pretty low? Amazing to see lovely, kind, peace-loving Canada so high up.

jive · 23-07-2011 05:01AM

Corsendonk wrote: »

Surprisely given your love of stats and wish to have a gun if you look at the countries near the top of the list of countries with gun deaths that I posted they are countries that guns are freely available in. So looser gun control more deaths.

Yes because those statistics tell the whole story. It's a lot more complicated than that, so complicated in fact that it doesn't even bear discussing because it will be the most long whinded rabbling between opposing opinions which will inevitably end up back at square one !

amacachi · 23-07-2011 05:04AM

jive wrote: »

Yes because those statistics tell the whole story. It's a lot more complicated than that, so complicated in fact that it doesn't even bear discussing because it will be the most long whinded rabbling between opposing opinions which will inevitably end up back at square one !

I reckon we should just all tool up to speed things up :P

Oslo bombed

Comments