EXCLUSIVE: Norway Massacre Justifies Disarmament?

| Rights Watch |

By David Codrea

A maniac disguised as a policeman went on a bombing and shooting spree in Norway, unopposed by responding law enforcement for a full 90 minutes. At this writing, eight people were killed by a car bomb explosion in Oslo, and less than two hours later, 69 people were shot and killed at a youth camp on Utoya Island. Per Radar Online, it was “the deadliest attack by a single gunman in history.”

As expected, the anti-gunners went into full blood-dance mode.

The Brady Campaign used the situation to accuse US-recognized firearms freedoms of being responsible for more carnage—citing several examples of mass shootings, albeit not mentioning the ones he cited to make their case—Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood—all took place in “gun free zones,” where the edicts they demand were in full force.

New Brady poster boy Colin Goddard, who was helpless during the Virginia Tech murders and now endorses laws to impose defenselessness on the rest of us, expressed outrage. “I was soon infuriated,” he pouted, “by the gun fanatics in America who immediately used this massacre to assert that strong gun laws, like Norway’s, don’t work.”

Well, they don’t.  Sorry if reality offends you, pal.

Not to be outdone, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy issued a statement actually blaming the Norway shootings on “lax US gun laws.” If only, she asserts, we would pass her standard-capacity magazine ban into law (what the antis call “assault clips” as a convenient sound bite to elicit a fear response from the ignorant), foreign terrorists would no longer be able to acquire them. Yeah, that’s what she’s selling.

You have to remember that knowing what she’s talking about is not her strong suit—when pressed by MSNBC host Tucker Carlson to explain elements of an “assault weapons” ban she introduced that included a barrel shroud among prohibited features, McCarthy was unable to explain what that was, finally postulating it was “that shoulder thing that goes up.”   Not content with only one class of firearms (gungrabbers never are), she held a press conference to ban .50 caliber rifles, introducing New York Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington, who authoritatively informed attending journalists “some of these bullets have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat-seeking device, so you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you cook it at the same time.”

British philosophy professor A.C. Grayling didn’t mess around with mere technical details—he went straight for the end game—the one the antis accuse gun owners of being paranoid about when we claim they ultimately want to ban private ownership of firearms.

“Guns, he writes,” should be the subject of worldwide outrage. Their manufacture and sale should be a human-rights abuse, on which we pour vilification and horror. They should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments, provided of course that the governments in question are themselves properly constituted and controlled by democratic means in a society where the rule of law obtains.”

There’s the rub, eh, professor?

Get More Rights Watch

We think you'd be interested in this, too

yellow text on black background that reads
Irons In Your...

What if your pistol optic gets filled with mud or decides to stop working? Expert Erick Gelhaus discusses options for using backup iron sights with pistol...
Read Full Article
Flat As A Pancake

A discussion of a specific class of concealment holsters, known generically as the “Pancake.” I’ve always admired the concept of the Pancake rig,...
Read Full Article
Stances and...

It’s a running joke among gun writers that if you cannot think of something original, write an X versus Y article. It’s like 9mm vs. .45ACP or even...
Read Full Article