Bible_Belt said:
Ironically, Norway has very strict gun control.
I don't see the irony at all ...
Gun control typically only works with law-abiding citizens, who don't require the gun control.
Moreover, the gun control was strict enough in Norway that only two people on an island of hundreds of people had firearms.
The mass-murderer, and one guard.
- As usual, mass-murderers target 'gun-free' zones, generally associated with young people because it has been politically determined that youth and students are not worthy of effective self-defense.
- One can determine that a firearm is analogous to a body's immune system. When the immune system is weak (few in-possession firearms per capita) one can come to a rational conclusion that a mass-murderer will be 'more successful' than if there were more "gun-toting irresponsible parents" around.
Cause and effect is often misconstrued on the gun control debate. When one thinks of guns in a bad light, one sees them in their criminal application. Does one blame the tool the criminal uses for their crime, or does one blame the criminal behavior? Object or action?
The study of firearm violence is often directed at the firearm, when in reality it should be directed at behavior. The amount/severity of crime (gun crime or other) is determined by culture and socioeconomics, not the tools they use.
If one looks back to the 1950s, military issue firearms/machine guns/grenades/mortar shells/etc. were everywhere in USA, yet the rate of firearms-related deaths outside of poor socioeconomic and culturally diverse zones was next to nil.
The above paragraph alone is enough to demolish the "guns are bad" theory, and if ones mind is free from televised propaganda, then the debate should turn immediately to social/cultural/immigration reform to end "gun violence".
That never happens though, so the wheel goes round and round in the gun control debate.
The gilded cart may look lavish and luxurious, but it is those sweaty and smelly horses which give it any value at all.