Harsh restrictions that leave most police and law-abiding citizens unarmed helped turn supposed gun-control paradise Norway into hell on earth.Funny how they'll not mention the fact that Breivik's a right-wing terrorist. Neither Scaife's braintrust nor the NRO intern they rely on for these five paragraphs ever get around to even hinting at the politics of the shooter. For them it's about access to guns.
Writing for National Review Online, intern Charlie Cooke says Norway's strict regulations -- guns allowed only for hunting and sports shooting, shooting-club membership required for handgun owners, police "unarmed except in special circumstances" -- are "an irrelevance when considering the actions of Anders Breivik."
The self-admitted perpetrator of last month's Oslo bombing and political youth-camp shootings had a clean criminal record. Had he not obtained his weapons legally in Norway, "he would have found them elsewhere," Mr. Cooke writes -- and tried to do so, in Prague, Czech Republic. Would-be terrorists "are beyond the law and will not be constrained by changes to it," he adds.
Neither police -- who needed 90 minutes to reach the island camp -- nor Mr. Breivik's targets had the firepower to fight back against him, a situation Cooke says is "inconceivable" here.
He calls Norway "a veritable paradise for those with ill intent who know that their actions will go unchecked" -- which is what the United States would be without Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
No, the problem in Norway, to them, isn't the right-wing terrorists arming themselves and shooting up some labor party kids to protect some "European Christian cultural legacy." The problem in Norway is that not enough people are armed. If only someone was armed at that camp, they earnestly tell us, the carnage might have been less.
Except that with its stricter gun control laws, there are only about 3 murders per 100,000 in Norway. Wanna know how that compares to the Good Ole USA where the gun control laws are less strict?
It's half of the estimated 6 per 100,000 for the US. That's half, for those who don't do math too good.
Huh. I would guess that maybe those harsh restrictions might have something to do with those numbers.
But I could be wrong.