|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 26 2011 11:47 acker wrote:
You would, of course, have to also take into account the number of unnecessary deaths 24/7 armed officers would create.
For example, if arming officers 24/7 accidentally caused five deaths/year through mistaken shootings and deaths caused by non 24/7 weapons reached 50 deaths every decade, arming officers would be a bad idea. Yes, the numbers are equal, but it takes money to buy and maintain that many guns, money that could otherwise go into correctional facilities or healthcare or something.
I'm guessing that it's much more complicated than the NYTimes article suggests, and that Norway has run studies on this suggesting that not arming officers around the clock might be better for society as a whole.
Norway will definitely make sure that the CT response will be much faster for the next incident, however. Helicopter failures are not a good thing in any situation.
True, but I'm also guessing that Sweden ran the numbers too, back in 1965 - when crime was even lower. It's all speculation eh? Ah well, perhaps too complicated of a topic for us to take stabs at without any real qualifications or legitimate information. I agree that we can't base too much off speculation, as the other poster mentioned. Maybe not arming police really is the better method (at least in Norway). I'm realizing it's pretty damn complicated, as you say.
|
I gotta say, although a bit strange to say in a time like this, but I really want to move Norway now.. or wish the US would handle things similarly 
|
|
|
On July 26 2011 11:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:
True, but I'm also guessing that Sweden ran the numbers too, back in 1965 - when crime was even lower. It's all speculation eh? Ah well, perhaps too complicated of a topic for us to take stabs at without any real qualifications or legitimate information. I agree that we can't base too much off speculation, as the other poster mentioned. Maybe not arming police really is the better method (at least in Norway). I'm realizing it's pretty damn complicated, as you say.
One thing: Sweden isn't Norway. Though violent crime reports in Sweden have risen at a constant rate per capita since 1965 even with police firearms...
It's definitely complicated beyond me, though. I do hope a decision is made through data, not fearmongering.
See United States for what fearmongering does ><
|
On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.” Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent.
How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection?
I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it.
I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over.
How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this?
|
On July 26 2011 12:20 Brethern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.” Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent. How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection? I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it. I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over. How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this?
I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon.
And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons.
|
On July 26 2011 11:06 BlackJack wrote:
"There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics?"
It's extremely obvious that he was saying "I don't know anything about this camp, other than that it's a political camp for youth and that sounds a little like Hitler youth."
What's the point in calling his comment ignorant when he is openly stating that he doesn't know anything about the camp?
You seriously don't think he was saying that for effect? Uh, ok.. this discussion is pointless
|
On July 26 2011 07:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote:
Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world. I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
|
To be honest I'm not too surprised to hear that he came from a solo-parent family. Can't cite them off the top of my head but I often hear about statistics linking psychological instability to fatherless children.
|
On July 26 2011 12:24 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:20 Brethern wrote:On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.” Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent. How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection? I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it. I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over. How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this? I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon. And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons. I don't recall ever saying anything about guns available to everyone. If I wanted that I'd move to Somalia, I want to have the ability to have my gun with me. I'd rather know that if the next camp massacre the news will report that the assailant caught in a firefight with several bystanders was killed with only one death and four injuries.
Isn't that better news than 100 kids killed?
|
On July 26 2011 12:45 Brethern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 12:20 Brethern wrote:On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.” Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent. How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection? I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it. I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over. How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this? I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon. And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons. I don't recall ever saying anything about guns available to everyone. If I wanted that I'd move to Somalia, I want to have the ability to have my gun with me. I'd rather know that if the next camp massacre the news will report that the assailant caught in a firefight with several bystanders was killed with only one death and four injuries. Isn't that better news than 100 kids killed?
First: Wait, so you are saying that only YOU should be able to carry guns, and none else? You say that you should be able to carry guns around everywhere, but your neighbor shouldn't? I find that logic hard to follow.
Second: Having more guns in the society will lead to more shootings, killings and deaths. More tragedies will happen.
|
On July 26 2011 12:40 Discretionary Duck wrote:
To be honest I'm not too surprised to hear that he came from a solo-parent family. Can't cite them off the top of my head but I often hear about statistics linking psychological instability to fatherless children.
Good thing you've pointed out the obvious triggering factor of the perpetrator. My father died when I was five. My mother raised my older sister and me alone. I'm glad you've got a good future in store for me.
Us single-parent children are the scourge of humanity, surely.
On July 26 2011 12:45 Brethern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 12:20 Brethern wrote:On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.” Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent. How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection? I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it. I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over. How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this? I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon. And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons. I don't recall ever saying anything about guns available to everyone. If I wanted that I'd move to Somalia, I want to have the ability to have my gun with me. I'd rather know that if the next camp massacre the news will report that the assailant caught in a firefight with several bystanders was killed with only one death and four injuries. Isn't that better news than 100 kids killed?
Since we're into random ideological fiction, the better alternative is a world where the terrorist didn't feel a need to perform such an act.
Anyhow, this is off-topic, so I won't pursue your point further.
|
On July 26 2011 12:59 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:45 Brethern wrote:On July 26 2011 12:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 12:20 Brethern wrote:On July 26 2011 11:47 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 11:24 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 11:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 26 2011 10:27 plated.rawr wrote:On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...[quote] Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective. The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event? One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown. I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is: 1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman. That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts). edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister). Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case. And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun. There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job. As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist. As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations? I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive. I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons. I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors. Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers). Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no. I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else. I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent. How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection? I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it. I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over. How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this? I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon. And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons. I don't recall ever saying anything about guns available to everyone. If I wanted that I'd move to Somalia, I want to have the ability to have my gun with me. I'd rather know that if the next camp massacre the news will report that the assailant caught in a firefight with several bystanders was killed with only one death and four injuries. Isn't that better news than 100 kids killed? First: Wait, so you are saying that only YOU should be able to carry guns, and none else? You say that you should be able to carry guns around everywhere, but your neighbor shouldn't? I find that logic hard to follow. Second: Having more guns in the society will lead to more shootings, killings and deaths. More tragedies will happen. As pointed out this is off topic if you want to continue it feel free to PM me.
|
United States7483 Posts
I'm very sad that this happened, especially in one of the most peaceful and friendly nations on the planet. This is a very unfortunate event not just for Norway, but for all mankind, as one of the beacons of humanity's future has come under attack.
My heart goes out to those who lost family members, and I grieve for what we may all lose in the name of 'security'.
|
i am very sorry for the victims, but at least you have to say that it was a good filler for the silly season.
|
On July 26 2011 13:03 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:40 Discretionary Duck wrote:
To be honest I'm not too surprised to hear that he came from a solo-parent family. Can't cite them off the top of my head but I often hear about statistics linking psychological instability to fatherless children. Good thing you've pointed out the obvious triggering factor of the perpetrator. My father died when I was five. My mother raised my older sister and me alone. I'm glad you've got a good future in store for me. Us single-parent children are the scourge of humanity, surely.
Chill out, I grew up in a fatherless, single-parent family as well. Did my post say ALL children from single-parent families are fucked in the head? No. Jesus Christ.
|
I just want to say that Glenn Beck and the Huffington post are both widely accepted as totally unprofessional and idiotic.
|
Religious-nuttery and ideological-certitude are more dangerous than common weapons. They're the reasons society needs weapons. And societies do need weapons. Pacifism as an individual philosophy is a beautiful thing and one I believe in. I will never own a gun. But, on a national scale, governing millions of people, pacifist ideology is just so dangerously naive. World History 101: people are not good. I understand the personal pride Norwegians feel in not having an armed police force and it may be well to error on the side of having too little force than too much, but ideology is never worth the loss of so many innocent lives. It's time to be pragmatic about having some police force, well-armed, just for cases like these.
I do hope Norway adopts a more advanced armed police force - have some good helicopters constantly maintained and well-trained men ready to handle a bloody situation if need be - and please, please, please do not allow this terrorist a life of even modest luxury and freedom. It would be an insult to common sense, all ideologies aside, to see this man be allowed to enjoy himself. Death-penalty isn't necessary, I agree, but if he simply is allowed to live a good quality-of-life until natural-causes claim him, without having to show any real repentance for his actions... I actually feel that kind of insults the victims of this tragedy. A murderer can be forgiven, I do believe. But not this. Who the hell forgives this?
Just my opinions. Above all that, it's just a sad and horrific and senseless event.
EDIT:
On July 26 2011 14:12 plated.rawr wrote:
Just a note - we have a fully armed and trained police force. They're just not equipped 24/7. For cases like these, we have armor, automatic weapons and the Delta anti-terror strikeforce.
Good to know. Hopefully they'll reevaluate their logistics though, so that they can be more responsive in state-of-emergencies, and maybe either hire more personnel or acquire high-tech transports if it'd help. I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing them or saying they're inept. The attack sounds like it was brutally surprising and coordinated. It's impossible to say if any other country would've responded better.
|
do you guys think some nutcase will get inspired by the manifest? i dont think the unabomber inspired anybody for instance
|
Just a note - we have a fully armed and trained police force. They're just not equipped 24/7. For cases like these, we have armor, automatic weapons and the Delta anti-terror strikeforce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
