Sorry again, but I think Andreas Breivik tweaked the statistics a little bit?

But ok, I think Norway is among the countries with lowest violent crimes rate in Europe, yes? But it doesn't mean you may feel entirely safe. People use to say "It will never happen to me", until it does.

It's difficult to give any numbers as the statistics don't really say how much violence was used. In 2010, 938 rapes were reported, with 129 of them actually ending in a sentence. Given the definition of rape being used, it's hard to tell how many were physically violent.

According to numbers I've found for Oslo, about 12-13% are assault rape. Such rape is probably less common in more rural areas. About one third is "party rape" and another third is "relationship rape". The latter may be more violent than the former. So, if you're thinking of rape by an (previously) unknown assailant, I'd think is only a couple of dozens each year. Then again, a lot of rapes are never reported.

I lack the numbers to substantiate it, but I've got the impression that it's more "common" to get killed as part of a violent rape than during a burglary here. Both numbers are too smal to have any scientific significance, though.
Could you please stop mixing numbers? Breivik did not kill a single person during a burglary; he executed 69 people because of their association with a certain political party (and bombed a government building killing another 8). Do you want to include traffic deaths as well?

I'm not sure about our violent crime rate ranking, but crime involving guns is definitely pretty low, even though there are 1.2-1.3 million legally registered guns. There are quite a few unregistered guns too, of course, for instance more than 500.000 unregistered shotguns according to numbers published by the police.

Nobody can feel entirely safe, not even if you put landmines in your lawn, electrify window sills, destilate your own drinking water etc etc. I'm more likely to be killed by an elk than a burglar, yet both are so unlikely that it doesn't make sense to worry about it. And it definitely doesn't make it ok to shoot anyone suspicious-looking person lurking around my house (I'd be killing a few people every year in that case).

So are we now saying that your assertion about not just shooting first is only applicable in nations with a certain set of statistics? Well, I guess that makes a bit of sense.

There aren't any reliable statistics about anything in Cambodia, but from anecdotal evidence and past experience, I can say that robberies here are almost always very violent, and that your average Cambodian robber would happily kill you for whatever is in your pocket at the time without giving it a second thought (especially in my case, being a foreigner driving around in a nice car, etc).

As such, I'd say that under the circumstances, it would be highly irresponsible not to keep a gun at home, or not to use it without hesitation upon finding a potentially armed intruder in your home.

We were talking about what is likely and what is less likely. Being a victim of shooting rampage is even less likely than being shot during burglary. But it happened.
People thought "it will never happen in Norway" and they left hundred of kids without any security. As i remember you was saying something about limitations for bearing a gun, that there should be less guns for people ? (or this was someone else) But using an argument "It's so improbable so I don't care" is not a great argument.

Murder statistics in Poland are also low (around 900 cases a year in 37 million country is not much) but it's not an argument against liberal guns bearing laws.

I think that every kid in school should be trained in cases of school shootout. How to behave, where to hide, etc. to minimize the victims rate. Even though it NEVER happened in Poland. But it will happen someday.

Also, more guns to security. Most security companies do not have license to arm their employees with a gun. Security officers are mostly armed only with batons and pepper spray, what makes them useless against armed robbers.

And finally, criminals don't care about limitations. You will decrease numbers of legally possesed guns, but not illegaly. If somebody is planning to comit a violent crime, he doesn't bother extra year or two in prison for illegal firearm.

And I have to admit that Norwegian penitentiary system works (even though it looks bizzare from here). But you have to admit that it works because of extraoridinary conditions your society lives in. So don't use argument "it's less likely to die in a burglary than in a plane crash" in general, because in most countries your argument is invalid.

1. Yes, but I didn't think that was something new? The OP's link is about an incident in the US, which is a somewhat civil country. I haven't thought it necessary to explicitly say that shooting first makes more sense if you're living in a war zone, but I thought it was at least hinted at inderectly through the use of statistics, like the chance of actually being killed by an intruder. It may be a 50/50 chance where you live, in which case your priorities are obviously different from most if not all US citizens.

My point has been the same all the way through this debate: Killing anyone entering your home without your knowledge and permission on the assumption that they will try to kill you on sight, is not a valid assumption, according to available statistics. Prejudice has its place and function, such incidents as a burglary when you're home being one of them, but the seriousness of your actions (shooting) should not be too disproprtional to the actual risk.

Anyway, you're taking my reply entirely out of context - it was specifically about me (and thus the country where I live).

2. I don't know much about Cambodia but I wouldn't be too surprised if the chances of being killed by a robber is five to ten times higher there than in the US. If I lived there, I'd probably keep a few guns at home - and be prepared to use them without any prior warning in some circumstances. It's still not the same as "I should be free to shoot and kill any unauthorized person on my property".

You don't have to make things up - there's plenty of information available on the Utøya incident if you're interested.

The children/teenagers/adults on Utøya did have the security, both at the island as well as on the mainland. ABB got through the perimeter security because he was wearing an official police uniform. Security is always a balance between how well secured you are and how inconvenient the security meassures are. Police surveilance could've picked up ABB long before he had the chance to do what he did, but at the cost of significantly less privacy for every citizen. It's a trade-off, based on statistics and risk assesments, thus anti-social nutjobs like ABB will always be able to do shit like that.

I hope you're not trying to say that the teenagers at Utøya should've been carrying guns, but I'm not sure what else would be relevant in a debate on guns being used for self-defense. The security guards carrying guns, maybe? That would make a little more sense in a way, I guess, but in this particular case they'd all be dead now instead of alive, if they'd been a real threat to ABB.

I don't think I've said anything about wanting less (legal) guns, only that the use of them ought to be restricted more than it apparently is in some US states.

On the contrary, something being extremely unprobable is a valid argument for not taking actions that are not limited to said improbable event. E.g. there is a miniscule chance of a polish dude comming to Norway intent on killing some of our top skiiers. The chance being so small is a valid argument not to refuse any polish dude access to Norway.

(I'll skip the rest of your anti anti-guns arguments, if you don't mind, as they don't apply)

Yes, it looks bizarre for most norwegians too, and I'm not really sure that it's the things that makes it look bizarre that are the actual reasons for our "success", but that's a different plate of peas.

I'm not using the burglar/plane argument in general.

But it doesn't mean your top skiiers should be left without proper security, yes? Extremes on both sides are not good, but even though it's unlikely that someone would like to shoot your sportsmen/women , you should left them unsecured?

Earthquakes are uncommon here, but when they happen, damages are always higher than they would be, if somebody taught people how to behave.

And I'm not saying that kids should carry guns, but I don't think for example 5 security guards with firearms would be killed by "ABB". /if they were trained well, they would kill him fast enough to minimize the victims rate.

Security is loose in Poland also, and i am afraid that some lunatic will start shooting kids here some day.

I'm pretty sure our top skiiers have no protection today, simply because there are no known threats (as far as I know anyway) to their lives or health. There were no known threats to the kids at Utøya, either. While it is a "political summer camp", most teenagers there were more interested in getting layed than learning about politics. ABB killed them because he assumed that some of them may eventually end up being a threat to his country and himself as he saw it. (Which does sound kind of familiar; just extend your home to your entire country..)

Posting five armed security guards there would likely have led to every parent prohibiting their kids to even go there - even though they'd probably be safer there than at home. And even with 50 armed security guards, nobody would've been entirely safe..

I'm very late for posting on this thread but that mother did the right thing. Self-defense is an unalienable individual right and handguns enable a wider range of people to defend themselves and their families under a wider range of circumstances than hand-to-hand techniques.

The only downside to this story is that the other burglar didn't get shot but maybe he'll do some soul searching and realize that what he's been doing was self-destructive and change his ways.