Norway and Libya: Gun Control - Murdering people

[Catatonic]

I'm sitting here trying to understand the differences between these two happenings and the effectiveness of Gun Control.
Both countries have Gun Control laws and both have had scores of citizens shot and killed in the last week .. one by the government and one by an individual.

 

[pickup]

I'm sitting here trying to understand the differences between these two happenings and the effectiveness of Gun Control.
Both countries have Gun Control laws and both have had scores of citizens shot and killed in the last week .. one by the government and one by an individual.

It's hot in Libya and its cold in Norway, that's the difference. It must have been a relatively warm day in Norway the day the mass killings took place.

Good enough as any theory.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe if you were to post the actual laws and the murder rate over, say the last 10 years, we could come to a logical conclusion. But who wants one of those?

 

[The Other Side]

I'm sitting here trying to understand the differences between these two happenings and the effectiveness of Gun Control.
Both countries have Gun Control laws and both have had scores of citizens shot and killed in the last week .. one by the government and one by an individual.

IS this a legitimate question or are you just trying to make us laugh?

Peace.

 

[Catatonic]

IS this a legitimate question or are you just trying to make us laugh?

Peace.

Not sure but that would be a reasonable return.

I laugh at you all the time so it's the least I can do.

Peace,

H

 

[moreluck]

PEA.....

 

[DS]

Not sure but that would be a reasonable return.

I laugh at you all the time so it's the least I can do.

Peace,
H,I pm'd me and is crying copyrite...
please keep your text type small as we can all see that big text usually equals questionable advice.
No offence to Integrity intended
Hoax is moving from an office to a shed.
I think we have not seen the last of the big ​H

 

[bbsam]

So will H be posting from "outo-plex"?

 

[DS]

My last post had nothing to do with this thread and I apologiize
I

 

[The Other Side]

Not sure but that would be a reasonable return.

I laugh at you all the time so it's the least I can do.

Peace,

H

That makes two of us, so I guess that makes it even, except you have to try harder.

Peace.

 

[raceanoncr]

That makes two of us, so I guess that makes it even, except you have to try harder.

Peace.

Even? With what? Try harder? Than what? Ignoring? Well, yes, at least Hoax and others acknowledge when they're being questioned.

Peace and glorious smell of burnt welding metal.

 

[TruthKnowledge-com]

I'm sitting here trying to understand the differences between these two happenings and the effectiveness of Gun Control.
Both countries have Gun Control laws and both have had scores of citizens shot and killed in the last week .. one by the government and one by an individual.

there is a reason nothing like this can happen in America (persecution of blacks or a certain group), it never happens when someone has the right to defend themselves. 9/11 happened because of gun control. Pilots couldn't be armed in the cock pit. now, don't you think it would be "harder" to hijack a plane with box cutters if the pilots were armed to defend themselves?


The answer is not gun control (prohibition), which always removes the guns from law abiding citizens and NEVER criminals. People who break the law can ALWAYS obtain a weapon or means of fulfilling what they want to fulfill. Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Guns protect, they scare the criminal and protect you.


You don't impose gun control or restrict it, you provide LIBERTY. You arm everyone or give everyone the "right" to obtain one!

Go to my blog to learn more
http://truthknowledge.com

 

[TruthKnowledge-com]

there is a reason nothing like this can happen in America (persecution of blacks or a certain group), it never happens when someone has the right to defend themselves. 9/11 happened because of gun control. Pilots couldn't be armed in the cock pit. now, don't you think it would be "harder" to hijack a plane with box cutters if the pilots were armed to defend themselves?


The answer is not gun control (prohibition), which always removes the guns from law abiding citizens and NEVER criminals. People who break the law can ALWAYS obtain a weapon or means of fulfilling what they want to fulfill. Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Guns protect, they scare the criminal and protect you.


You don't impose gun control or restrict it, you provide LIBERTY. You arm everyone or give everyone the "right" to obtain one!

 

[Babagounj]

We have discussed this issue several times.
In states that allow people to carry weapons crime actually goes down.
In places that restrict gun ownership the crime rate soars.
But every good liberals will dispute these known facts and spit out some meaningless garbage that we are all safer when no one legally can be armed.
Look at Mexico , they have some of the strictest gun ownership laws, yet thousands are killed every year. Go to http://www.borderlandbeat.com/
Warning some of their pictures will be gross and upsetting.

 

[wkmac]

When it comes to gun control and the limiting of firearms in society, a natural response is "who will protect me if I'm unable to have a gun for that purpose?" The natural right to defend one's self is long established so then the next question would be as to the means and thus the great gun debate. But also in this debate are those who argue for the removal of guns while stating that it will be the police as in, "it's their job" who will protect us.

Wendy McElroy has written an interesting piece looking at the legal position of just where the requirements are on police officers in their duties to protect the public. There are too numerous examples of officers going beyond these limits but the legal facts still stand and should be included IMO in any debate when it come to limiting any right and means of self defense.

I happen to agree that there are too many firearms in American society but my belief in the root cause of this is best explained in another thread where I posed 11 questions on the matter. Those questions are so obvious as they are self evident IMO. Let's also just say that the root cause of the purveyance of firearms in American society is the same entity some would look to in order to limit them and then control the very "protect and serve" apparatus this post is about.

"Protect and Serve" has never meant what we all thought it was suppose to mean because "WE" are not the one's being "protected" and "served!"