Just to clearify:

The Norwegian court can maximum sentence someone to 21 years at once.

(A new law is being discussed, where one can be sentenced to 30 years, this law however has not yet taken effect,

and therefore he can not be sentenced to 30 years)

However, this does not mean that they will be let out after 21 years,

their sentence will be extended with 5 years each time they have "paid their due".

Anders Behring Breivik(the perpetrator) will be in prison for the rest of his life, no question!

And not only that, but he will be the lowest on the rank order, along with pedophiles,

and therefore get bullied by the other inmates. (Worse than a lethal injection if you ask me)

The Norwegian police does not carry guns, they rely on their wits, training, experience

and sometimes(unfortunately) on their muscles and arrest-techniques.

(The average police man only use force once or twice eatch month, and therefore weapons is unnesessary,

and will only cause an escalation of gun-use in the criminal environment)

However, they often have weapons in their vehicle, which can be used in emergency situations,

or when given oral promission from the local chief of police.

The security on the island was a former police man, so even if the police did carry guns, he would not be able to shoot the perpetrator.

The police-officers arresting "Anders" where from the Emergency Troop "Delta", which is about equal to SWAT. (It took them two minutes from they arrived to the island till they arrested him)

Feel free to reply if you have any questions, and i will try to answer them

(The average police man only use force once or twice eatch month, and therefore weapons is unnesessary,

and will only cause an escalation of gun-use in the criminal environment)

This has been proven wrong time and time again... Studies show an armed population has less crime...

(The average police man only use force once or twice eatch month, and therefore weapons is unnesessary,

and will only cause an escalation of gun-use in the criminal environment)

This has been proven wrong time and time again... Studies show an armed population has less crime...

Yep, criminals who fear getting armed response from their victims or the law WILL commit less crimes. No thief enters a house when he knows that the landlord sleeps with a shotgun besides his bed.

Edited July 29, 201114 yr by Break

Well, in this case i was talking about armed police officers, not an "armed population".

If the police arm themselves full-time, this will not only make the criminals use weapons more often, but it will make the relationship between the police and the general public bad, we don´t want the citizens of Norway to fear the ones who are here to "protect and serve" them.

And keep in mind, even police officers snap once in a while:

This exact event is a good example of that, the perpetrator was dresse as a police officer, and carrying a gun. The police uniform helped him to lure the youths to approach him, claiming that he would helped them, but instead he shot them right down. If someone who should not really be a police officer was carrying a gun at the wrong place at the wrong time, he/she could kill someone, accidentally or on purpose.

How come you both misunderstood what i said, i though i was being very clear and straight forward. Or....?

If the police arm themselves full-time, this will not only make the criminals use weapons more often, but it will make the relationship between the police and the general public bad,

That is completely false. What evidence/quantitative data do you base that off of?

No it won't. Take most countries in Europe as an example. I can only speak for Spain and Germany, and here all officers except the low-bimbo traffic ones carry semi-automatics; and hey, we do respect them, but we don't fear them. The public knows that the police is on their side if something happens and guns don't change that. Even on airports in Germany when you see the policemen walking around with their MP5s and G36s, you know that they aren't going to shoot you and you feel safe in a kind of way that you know that if a crazy man with a bomb or hell even a gun comes in, and open fire, he's going down before he can shoot a second person. But that's my opinion.

No it won't. Take most countries in Europe as an example. I can only speak for Spain and Germany, and here all officers except the low-bimbo traffic ones carry semi-automatics; and hey, we do respect them, but we don't fear them. The public knows that the police is on their side if something happens and guns don't change that. Even on airports in Germany when you see the policemen walking around with their MP5s and G36s, you know that they aren't going to shoot you and you feel safe in a kind of way that you know that if a crazy man with a bomb or hell even a gun comes in, and open fire, he's going down before he can shoot a second person. But that's my opinion.

i agree :thumbsup:

Well, in this case i was talking about armed police officers, not an "armed population".

If the police arm themselves full-time, this will not only make the criminals use weapons more often, but it will make the relationship between the police and the general public bad, we don´t want the citizens of Norway to fear the ones who are here to "protect and serve" them.

And keep in mind, even police officers snap once in a while:

This exact event is a good example of that, the perpetrator was dresse as a police officer, and carrying a gun. The police uniform helped him to lure the youths to approach him, claiming that he would helped them, but instead he shot them right down. If someone who should not really be a police officer was carrying a gun at the wrong place at the wrong time, he/she could kill someone, accidentally or on purpose.

How come you both misunderstood what i said, i though i was being very clear and straight forward. Or....?

That is completely false. What evidence/quantitative data do you base that off of?

Well, i am absolutely positive that the majority of the Norwegian people would vote against the police carrying guns, actually, i´m not only positive, i´m certain, as this is proven through surveys.

Even the police officers themselves voted against it, i believe 8/10 police officers was positive that them carrying guns would do no good, and who is better to judge than both parties involved?

As for you Break , i have no idea why you would use German and Spain as examples of how Norwegian citizens would react to police arming themselves, as the situations in these countries are far from the same.

Besides, how do you think a 4 year old would react to a full-auto weapon? Unless he plays COD all day long, i bet it wouldn't be a pleasant sight. Yes, the police is here to protect us, but since weapons in public is extremely rare in Norway, a policeman´s main job will be to talk, listen, and of course cuff someone from time to time.

There is a major difference between interacting with a unarmed than a armed man, you can´t argue that.

Well, lets not make an argument in this thread as i already feel disrespectful towards the victims of this event for even starting something that could possibly turn into an "on the edge" discussion.

My opinion is, and no matter what any of you say, right now you can´t change that:

You should not arm the whole police force in a country unless that is necessary, and in Norway, as of today, it is not!

(And i´m not saying this to be rude, but unless you live in Norway, or are familiar with the situation and environment here, please don´t argue it)

My condolence to those who lost one of their family and/or friends in the horrible event that took place in Norway!

Edited July 30, 201114 yr by GAS

So you're saying the Norwegians are mentally different? Bringing up a racial point or something? After all we're all humans, no matter if living in Spain, the USA or Norway and unless the mentality is a 100% different, people won't react different to those kind of things - and I'm pretty sure Norwegians, though always thinking they're very different from the world, are not that different from other european countries in the end.

Besides, how do you think a 4 year old would react to a full-auto weapon? Unless he plays COD all day long, i bet it wouldn't be a pleasant sight.

In what country do 4 year olds know what an automatic rifle is? When I first saw one, no not in a video game, but in a police escort I asked my mother what that was and she responded "a gun" and that's it. I didn't run home crying saying that it is a gun, after all it's not like you're seeing someone getting shot, which is a horrible thing that traumatizes people.

(And i´m not saying this to be rude, but unless you live in Norway, or are familiar with the situation and environment here, please don´t argue it)

So you're basically telling us to gtfo just because we don't live in Norway? Hmn, I bet it would be fun to discuss alone then, buddy. Cheap way out, if you have an argument, fight for it, don't just ban your opposition.

So I actually asked my girlfriend a couple of days ago (she's from Denmark btw - and don't you go "herp derp this is a completely different country" on me again, I know Denmark is not the same as Norway, still it's from the scandinavian region) and she did agree on me that guns, though giving the police force more power, would still give the people more security and trust that these things won't happen again. She explained this as, that people in Norway are gonna open their eyes and see that a man, can simply walk into a crowd of people where even a ex-policeman was present and shoot them all and only get resistance after one and a half hours. If at least the ex officer or some police stations in the near surroundings of the island have had some guns, maybe he could have been stopped with less casualities and some parents would still be able to hold their kids in their arms now.

Now without a referrence to that horrible thing that happened, what if a police officer get's threatened by an insane man with a gun? "Yeah hold on buddy, gotta ask the chief if I can defend myself". It doesn't work, police needs to be able to respond actively to threats, otherwise they're useless. Now don't say "Norway is different, our people are pacifists. That might be true, but with globalisation that is going to change. Criminals don't care if a country is pacifist, they get what they can to scare the people into doing what they want and if you need to call your delta squad each time a man threatens an old lady with his gun for her purse, then sorry, it's not going to work out unless the SWAT takes over the police work. And again, that's my opinion, feel free to keep flaming.

Well, as weak as this sounds, i do not wish to discuss it in this forum anymore. (As i stated in my last post) (And just so that is said, i did never mention any racial and/or mental difference between the norwegian people and the rest of Europe, i simply pointed out that the situation in the individual countries was and is different )

If i wanted to, i could continue, but this forum was for informing people about the ongoing crisis, not shouting out mine or anyone else's opinions on the matter.

And as i said, it is pretty disrespectful arguing in such a thread.

So now that you got the last word, thanks for the discussion, and i hope that the next post here will be happy and/or fair-minded informative!

Don't try and take the moral high road dude. It's lower than claiming to be a troll after losing an argument...

Let's not turn this thread into a gun debate which is absolutely disgusting to see.

Totally agree with Mage. Some countries just have other opinions about guns. You could go on and on about the

effects of gun use with both the police and the general public. Some studies claim that guns incite the use of violence while others

say that armed response will have a proactive effect. Which one you want to believe is your choice but they still all remain theories.

Yeah and some guy is already going through the topic -1 everyone. God you can't have discussions on this forum, otherwise you will be considered "uninformative" or even as far as "disrespectful". If you can't take opposition and discuss, a forum is not a place for you.

Just to remind you:

forum (plural forums or fora)

• A place for discussion.
• A gathering for the purpose of discussion.
• A form of discussion involving a panel of presenters and often participation by members of the audience.

Absolutely right. You can't even have a decent discussion on a forum anymore without having someone just giving everyone -1 who has another opinion.

I myself didn't even say anything that could have insulted or hurt anyone. Where has the world gone to...

Edited July 30, 201114 yr by kjel0112

Well, if you wish to discuss this further, make a new thread, as i am not willing to discuss in this thread anymore.

And for you who is not updated on the "terror case" the perpetrator has been sentenced to 8 weeks detainment, while the police gather evidence and prepare their case.

Well, if you wish to discuss this further, make a new thread, as i am not willing to discuss in this thread anymore.

tissue?

And for you who is not updated on the "terror case" the perpetrator has been sentenced to 8 weeks detainment, while the police gather evidence and prepare their case.

That's good news though, hopefully he goes away for a long time and gets raped each day by some inmates.

tissue?

That's good news though, hopefully he goes away for a long time and gets raped each day by some inmates.

Well, he won`t get raped any time soon as he is totaly isolated from other inmates, family, friends and media. (Basically he won`t talk to anyone except his lawyer and the prison guards)