|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 23, 2011 6:50:55 GMT -5
Nothing I say could possibly be sufficient. My heart goes out to the dead, the surviving, and to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 23, 2011 6:58:10 GMT -5
84 from the shooting? Good God, that's... that's almost double the number of deaths from a previous lone gunman spree killing! I don't know if its shock, or what, but my immediate reaction is "concealed carry permits fro everybody from this point on!" Next reaction is to say how very, very sorry I am to everyone in Norway, and to victim's friends and family especially. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 23, 2011 7:23:17 GMT -5
And who exactly would everyone be shooting at? They'd be slaughtering eachother in the confusion.
Anders Breivik couldn't have been a lone gunman, survivor accounts and events leading up to the massacre suggest he had help. Survivors report being first called into an open area directly in front of Breivik, thinking he was going to address the crowd (he was disguised as a policeman) before being caught in a crossfire. It doesn't matter if one man has an SMG, after 5 seconds of full-auto fire he has to reload and if 100 victims are directly in front of him somebody's going to charge at the obvious shooter as soon as the bullets stop. Assuming a 30 round magazine, he'd only be hitting three or four people in each burst before reloading, taking two seconds to switch clips for every 5 of fire and burning through more than 24 clips and that's assuming he was unusually accurate. If professional soldiers are anything to go by, he'll only be able to carry a maximum of 5 extra clips. Unless there's multiple shooters raining fire from different directions it would be impossible to pull this off.
No, Anders had accomplices and they planned this massacre out with ugly precision. He knew after the blast police would be running all over the area without people batting an eye, so he disguised himself as one travelling armed in plain sight and herding his intended victims into the kill zone. His uniform must have been legit, because he was stopped by other officers. He presented ID which also checked out. If that ID happened to be a badge, then he could only have gotten that from a real cop. If I'm right, and this is one of those time I will REALLY hate to be right, the source of his disguise and his backup are one and the same. Heavily armed police were supposed to be all over the area and escorting that Youth Camp in particular but somehow nobody was in range to engage him.
There's a distinct and frightening possibility he orchestrated all of this with like-minded members of the police force, who posed as a police escort, penned in their 84 victims, gunned them down alongside the sick monster, finally posing as his arresting officers and bringing Breivik in alive as a propaganda icon and maybe as a political catalyst. I'm in danger of showing up on CSTDT here and frankly I'll be glad if I'm being paranoid but that seems the most likely scenario to explain just how he managed to pull that off. Please just let this be lack-of-sleep-from-overwhelming-emotion paranoia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Jul 23, 2011 7:25:55 GMT -5
84 from the shooting? Good God, that's... that's almost double the number of deaths from a previous lone gunman spree killing! To put the sheer scale of it into historical context: if you add up the death toll from the Virginia Tech, Columbine and Dunblane massacres, you are still 23 short of what happened yesterday.  |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 23, 2011 7:29:46 GMT -5
84 from the shooting? Good God, that's... that's almost double the number of deaths from a previous lone gunman spree killing! To put the sheer scale of it into historical context: if you add up the death toll from the Virginia Tech, Columbine and Dunblane massacres, you are still 23 short of what happened yesterday. Well, as an Australian, I don't think any discussion on the topic is really complete without mention of Port Arthur, Hoddle Street, or Strathfield. Sadly, Australia can very, very genuinely empathise with Norway's pain. Thinking on this further... 84 people, thats... that really is just phenomenal, considering that unless you take your time and have a clear, close range shot at either the head or CoSM, its actually pretty unlikely any given gunshot victim will die from their injury. IIRC, its about 1:10 deaths:survivable wounding in combat. Yeah, roughly |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 23, 2011 7:35:01 GMT -5
And who exactly would everyone be shooting at? They'd be slaughtering eachother in the confusion. Anders Breivik couldn't have been a lone gunman, survivor accounts and events leading up to the massacre suggest he had help. Survivors report being first called into an open area directly in front of Breivik, thinking he was going to address the crowd (he was disguised as a policeman) before being caught in a crossfire. It doesn't matter if one man has an SMG, after 5 seconds of full-auto fire he has to reload and if 100 victims are directly in front of him somebody's going to charge at the obvious shooter as soon as the bullets stop. He'd only hitting three or four people in each burst before reloading, taking two seconds to switch clips for every 5 of fire and burning through more than 14 clips assuming he was unusually accurate. Unless there's multiple shooters coming from every direction. No, Anders had accomplices and they planned this massacre out. He knew after the blast police would be running all over the area without people batting an eye, so he disguised himself as one travelling armed in plain sight and herding his intended victims into the kill zone. His uniform must have been legit, because he was stopped by other officers. He presented ID which also checked out. If that ID happened to be a badge, then he could only have gotten that from a real cop. If I'm right, and this is one of those time I will REALLY hate to be right, the source of his disguise and his backup are one and the same. Heavily armed police were supposed to be all over the area and escorting that Youth Camp in particular but somehow nobody was in range to engage him. There's a distinct and frightening possibility he orchestrated all of this with like-minded members of the police force, who penned in their 84 victims and brought Breivik in alive as a propaganda icon, and maybe as a catalyst. I'm in danger of showing up on CSTDT here and frankly I'll be glad if I'm being paranoid but that seems the most likely scenario to explain just how he managed to pull that off. Please just let this be lack-of-sleep-from-overwhelming-emotion paranoia. I appreciate your point. However... I honestly can't think what is a more tragic proposition, being gunned down defenceless, or being shot accidentally in the crossfire by an armed citizen returning fire at a spree shooter. As an extreme example, I guess "greatest good for greatest number triage" applies. Which leads to the greater number of people killed or injured? A spree killer, unopposed, mowing down his victims with impugnity? Or a spree killer and armed respondants in a firefight? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 23, 2011 7:38:58 GMT -5
How can one gunman manage to claim 84 lives in a single go? That's just... I don't know, I'm having a hard time grasping how someone could even manage to kill that many people, even if they were all unarmed & isolated.
This whole thing is horrifying. I really don't know what else to say about it.
e: The problem with everyone being armed is that it would lead to confusion over who the shooter is. You're holding a gun, someone else mistakes you for the shooter, they fire at you, you fire back thinking they're the murderer, and multiple people begin firing at both of you under the same mistaken assumption. Before long you have everyone shooting at everyone else, with even the police not knowing who to go after.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 23, 2011 7:41:46 GMT -5
How can one gunman manage to claim 84 lives in a single go? That's just... I don't know, I'm having a hard time grasping how someone could even manage to kill that many people, even if they were all unarmed & isolated. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 23, 2011 7:43:47 GMT -5
How can one gunman manage to claim 84 lives in a single go? That's just... I don't know, I'm having a hard time grasping how someone could even manage to kill that many people, even if they were all unarmed & isolated. This whole thing is horrifying. I really don't know what else to say about it. e: The problem with everyone being armed is that it would lead to confusion over who the shooter is. You're holding a gun, someone else mistakes you for the shooter, they fire at you, you fire back thinking they're the murderer, and multiple people begin firing at both of you under the same mistaken assumption. Before long you have everyone shooting at everyone else, with even the police not knowing who to go after. Again, I appreciate the point. I just know that I, personally, in such a situation would want the chance to defend myself and those around me. I think anyone dying without the chance to even defend themselves is just... well, worse than dying with a chance to defend yourself, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 23, 2011 7:54:04 GMT -5
The main problem is that whoever doesn't see the original shooters before the lead starts flying will be assuming anyone that pulls out a gun that they don't personally know has their back is one of the gunmen trying to kill them. You're also forgetting that there are more weapons than just guns, and if only the people trying to kill you have guns then they're very easy to identify. I find a blade through eye stops people from shooting rather quickly, and even in the armed forces a knife is preferred for close engagements than a pistol or rifle. In the case of this particularly horrible story the sheer math of the crowd being shot into would be weapon enough against a lone gunman. They'd easily identify and floor him if not tear him limb from limb in a desperate panic. At a longer range in the middle of a gunfight you're better off looking for cover than looking for a decent shot and putting an increasing amount of distance between you and your would-be killer until they run out of ammunition.
You also have to consider what happens in a massed gunbattle by the time police or worse -the military - arrives knowing even less about what's going on than the people currently shooting. All they'll be seeing is confused armed groups shooting it out, panicking and attacking anybody else holding a gun without knowing who's friend and who's foe possibly including the cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 23, 2011 7:55:11 GMT -5
God damn Rapture Ready. Why do I always give in to the temptation to read their threads about large-scale tragedies?
|
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 23, 2011 8:01:31 GMT -5
According to the latest from the BBC there may have been a second a shooter. But the confirmed shooter dressed as a police officer and asked everyone to gather together. Being in a group would make them a rather easy target. As would shooting people in the back as they fled. He was even shooting people as they tried to swim away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 23, 2011 8:04:38 GMT -5
According to the latest from the BBC there may have been a second a shooter. But the confirmed shooter dressed as a police officer and asked everyone to gather together. Being in a group would make them a rather easy target. As would shooting people in the back as they fled. He was even shooting people as they tried to swim away. I gave my highly disturbing theory and hoped it was a flight of fancy. What's your take? |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Jul 23, 2011 8:05:15 GMT -5
According to the latest from the BBC there may have been a second a shooter. But the confirmed shooter dressed as a police officer and asked everyone to gather together. Being in a group would make them a rather easy target. As would shooting people in the back as they fled. He was even shooting people as they tried to swim away. Oh God that is just fucked up. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 23, 2011 8:07:57 GMT -5
Again, I appreciate the point. I just know that I, personally, in such a situation would want the chance to defend myself and those around me. I think anyone dying without the chance to even defend themselves is just... well, worse than dying with a chance to defend yourself, I guess. I agree. But death by friendly fire is even less dignified. And while gun proliferation may/will limit the death toll of asymmetric amok shootings, it will increase the number of overall shootings. My heart goes to Norway. I can't really imagine the shock the people experience right now, but... 91 dead, fuck! |
|
