Why do these arguments always only include "firearm based homicides"? Homicides take many forms, but the anti-gun types are only concerned about the people killed by guns, as though the other victims were not relevant; who are they, chopped liver?
In this case one camper who happened to have brought along his bolt action hunting rifle could have ended this. Police took 90 minutes getting to the island.
My point wasn't that armed citizens wouldn't have been useful - they would. Just trying to make sure we put things in balance - the usual repsonse this side of the pond is to further restrict firearms access to civilians (which is generally useless but satifies the politicians need to be seen to do something). In the wake of this shooting someone in Norway will almost certainly be suggesting 'banning guns' - increasing armed access in reponse to this might seem sensible but will go against the flow of pereceived opinion, and there is little that debating online will do about that.
Previous Topic
Index
