Barozi said:
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:
The issue is that the people who do these crimes are the ones with access to the black market. The other portion would be happy using some other effective means like a bomb or a fire. I wonder how many people would've gotten shot by Breivik if at least five percent of the hundred or so on that island had a weapon. I think while gun bans help decrease the number of mass shootings they also increase the number of deaths per incident.
|
It was a youth summer camp organised by a political party on an island. How could you expect ANYONE to carry a gun there?
|
There were no adults at said camp? Are not political desitinations like these ripe for attacks?
|
not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).
|
You carry a gun for what might happen. It's really no different than carrying the proper equipment for a possible surivival situation when out somewhere in the sticks. Sometimes, the most innocent of situations or places becomes a fight for your life and if you had the right item, it could save your life. An extra water container, spare tire, life jacket or GPS is no different than a gun. If someone had a gun for self defense, they could of defended themselves at least or it would of outright put an end to the shooting much earlier.
