A metal heart, shiny red and new stands erect in the garden at Oslo Cathedral in the city centre.

Mourners gather in Oslo, one year on. Picture: AFP

Black letters spell out the words og storst av alt er kjaerligheten and the English translation: “Greatest of all is love”.

Unlike many parts of Norway, this is one occasion where English is necessary, for there is not one country in the world that would not remember the sheer horror that occurred last year when 33-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, single-handedly bombed government buildings in the city centre, killing eight, before proceeding to the island of Utøya and taking the lives of 69 people – mostly teenagers – in a campaign he had masterminded for years that would, he believed, restore Norway from the Labor Party policies and Muslim population he so strongly loathed.

Norway, and indeed Scandinavia, is not a part of the world that is synonymous with such violence. I can still recall the news of America’s Columbine Massacre in 1999, when I was a teenager myself, and my almost-acceptance of such an atrocity.

How typical, was the first thought from both me, and many people I knew. What would you expect from the United States, the gun-happy country with potential presidents like Sarah Palin who express their love for shooting. Viking history is far from gentle, but Norway a terrorist target? It didn’t make sense.

During my stay in Oslo, I soon learned from locals that the heart was placed at the cathedral after weeks of mourners piling overflowing bouquets of flowers at the church. Flowers are still abundant today, along with the names and photos of those whose faces are too young to look at for longer than a few seconds at the most.

“It was just such a shock, because this is not that kind of country,” said my friend, Vensti, who moved to Norway four years ago from Bulgaria in search of change.

Though he has no family in the city, and knew no one who was killed, 22 July was a day that will forever be clear in Ventsi’s mind, for that day he was spared his usual early-morning start at work in an act of fate that steered him away from the site of the bombings – streets that he walks past each working day.

That week, staying with locals, I watched part of Breivik’s ongoing trial on television. With no subtitles, the dialogue was lost on me, but the cloud of solemnity hung heavy as a rug over everyone in the court room who seemed pained when forced to make the most basic of movements.

The voyeuristic part of me, however, could not resist watching Breivik, who for much of what I saw, sat poised and well-groomed – almost elegant – and certainly far from sorry.

This is no surprise. After all, like a true martyr, Breivik admitted neither remorse nor regret at what he had done, and – according to reports – held back a smile when presented with video evidence at the beginning of his trial.

“Why are they doing this?!” my host, Anton, asked in a rage that only television seems capable of invoking.

“Why not just send him to prison and talk about it later instead of having him in the room and causing all this suffering to the relatives and family of those who died?”

Having spent a week as part of a jury duty the month before, I replied: “Because it is the law’s job to drag everything out as long as possible.”

Such cynicism seems somewhat crass given the circumstances, but I was merely trying to lighten the mood in what is still a painful topic even for those who were not directly affected.

Still disturbed at how something so terrifying could have happened, I explored as much of Oslo as I could. Many European cities, like Prague and Stockholm, pride themselves on their past, but Oslo is a city consumed by transformation, its eye firmly fixated on the future.

It is difficult to take a photo without the sight of cranes and bulldozers in the background; but it was not the future that I was interested in.

On my sole wet day in Norway, I took myself off to the one and only museum that I would visit during my time there: the Munch Museum.

Edvard Munch, the tortured artist whose famous scream has reverberated off the canvas and into so much of pop-culture created pained works that were both universal and prophetic and it’s no coincidence that one of the first paintings I saw was entitled, The Murderer, an eerie vision of a green-faced man whose hands are flesh-pink walking almost hunched down an empty road. Only he, it seems, knows exactly what he has done.

Seeing “The Scream” in real life, I was struck by how small the canvass was. I had expected something large and imposing but, confronted by the pained epicene creature – also green-faced – walking on a bridge under what must surely be the midnight sun, all I could think of was the words of a Dutch man I met in Trondheim in Norway’s south who lamented that: “No one talks about anything here.”

Afterwards, at the famous Our Saviours cemetery, a modest lush-green garden where the likes of writer Camilla Collett and playwright, Henrik Ibsen are laid to rest, I searched for Munch’s grave and found only blood-filled syringes thrown carelessly on the ground.

One week later and due to fly out, the only conclusion that I was able to draw was that Oslo is a city steeped in suffering – a suffering that dates back far longer than the horrendous killings that shook the entire world last year. But there are also glimmers of hope, and, if the message at the cathedral is anything to go by, enough love to reshape the city and its people too.

Mitchell Jordan is a Sydney writer.

Most commented

76 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Inky says:

      07:29pm | 23/07/12

      That closing paragraph is a little melodramatic, isn’t it?

    • TChong says:

      06:29am | 24/07/12

      Inky
      After the Bali bomb massacre there was plenty of emotion, introspection , and maudlin type articles and comments. ( all understandable , and no doubt genuinley felt by those who wrote them.)
      Maybe its how the author feels about what he experienced

    • Kika says:

      11:13am | 24/07/12

      I think he’s referring to the fact that Norway was pretty crippled post Nazi occupation - the wounds are still pretty raw over there.

    • Ramona Nizar says:

      11:34am | 24/07/12

      Yet again, a well written article by Mr. Jordan, a much read, respected, Sydney based journalist, who never fails to invoke a sense of empathy in the hearts and minds of his readers.
      By starting on a positive note of ‘The Greatest of all is Love’ Jordan has encapsulated the resilience and nobility of the Norwegians who united as one to condemn and extinguish the flame of hatred and extremism which Breivik tried unsuccessfully to ignite. It speaks volumes of the country’s collective spirit of tolerance; one that is undisputedly unparalleled in Europe.
      The horror and sheer incredulity of Norway’s tolerant citizens at this senseless massacre has been very succinctly elucidated. If one is to read between the lines, there is a subtle warning that vigilance must replace complacency; safe havens are surely a thing of the past.
      The connection the author has made of the paintings, Murder & The Scream, to the massacre very eloquently conveys the depth of shock, macabre depression and turmoil the peaceful citizens of Oslo must surely still feel. A year has passed by, true, but can one quantify the time and effort it would take for a grieving parent to accept a child’s martyrdom at the hands of a psychopath, or for a rational human being to comprehend how such a monster could live in plain sight of a largely peaceful community? 
      As for the last line being melodramatic; I can empathise with the author and understand his reasoning. ‘’Oslo is a city steeped in suffering – a suffering that dates back far longer than the horrendous killings.’’ Oslo after all was burned to ashes over 14 times in its troubled history, and it also has the dubious distinction of having auctioned off children until the practice was outlawed in the 1900s. It was also the site of a terrorist bombing in 2011. Perhaps these facts weighed heavily on Jordan’s mind when he made this remark. 
      Ramona Nizar -  Sydney, Australia

    • Captain Cavehead says:

      08:41pm | 23/07/12

      There isn’t a massacre big enough to make Americans think they don’t need to access enough of or the type of guns that could arm a small army of one. What they should do is arm everyone lots more, let them ‘have it out’ and whoever’s left can fight over the rubble. It would be communism to take peoples guns!! I don’t even know what communism is, my political knowledge is at a 5th grade level but i screech the loudestand vote Republican so listen to me! On one hand it’s sad when kiddies die because anyone can buy a gun without checks or licences or nothing, but on the other, I needs my many guns in case the king of england gets in your face or the country is overun by zombies!  You never know when you may need to blow away seven people in 4 tenths of a second. God bless stinkland!

    • Inky says:

      09:44pm | 23/07/12

      Proving that there can be irrational extreamists on both sides of the debate.

    • M says:

      06:54am | 24/07/12

      I’d vote for him.

    • subotic T Nugent says:

      08:12am | 24/07/12

      Yes, poor, silly Americans, who are still able to arm themselves and fight back against an oppressor, outside or inside their borders. What a stupid idea, allowing the populace to actually have the ability to protect themselves should the need ever arise.

      Praise Jeebus that us smart Australians had the foresight to disarm our population so we could never fight back if we ever needed to. Glad my family and I are sitting ducks….

    • miloinacup says:

      08:30am | 24/07/12

      There have been many people who have argued that if there were people in the theatre with concealed weapons, then this wouldnt have happened because they could have shot the gunman. :-|

      America will never change their gun laws. There are too many people who are hung up over their “right to keep and bear arms” for it to ever change. For a lot of people, making gun laws more tight is akin to taking away their individual rights.

    • fml says:

      08:49am | 24/07/12

      Maybe they should sell the kiddies guns too? It’s not fair that the adults are the only ones that can play. That way the kiddies can defend themselves against the nasty people too.

      Inky, there is no debating with someone who has a gun.

    • M says:

      08:55am | 24/07/12

      That just stands to reason though, doesn’t it fml?

    • fml says:

      09:22am | 24/07/12

      Subotic,

      Have we ever need to fight back? Disarming australia was the best thing we ever did, I dislike howard, but I respect him for doing that.

      Also, do you have a pond and a nice comfy park bench? I have a stale loaf of bread I would like to get rid of smile

    • AdamC says:

      09:48am | 24/07/12

      Subotic, I agree that the extreme gun control (in reality, more like gun prohibition) policies put in place in Australia are over-the-top. These sorts of incidents are tragic, but they are also rare, and have occurred in countries with relatively strict gun laws. There is also no evidence that gun restrictions reduce crime overall.

      People who advocate balance in the gun debate should not allow themselves to be silences by the politicisation and exploitation of people’s grief over incidents like this, which was the work of an individual.

    • Budz says:

      09:52am | 24/07/12

      At what stage do you draw the line on individual freedom? Is it within my individual freedom to carry around a nuclear weapon if I promise I won’t use it? How about taking knives and guns on a plane?

    • M says:

      09:57am | 24/07/12

      Why was it the best thing ever fml?

    • subotic C. Heston says:

      10:00am | 24/07/12

      @fml, whilst I appreciate that we currently have no need to arm ourselves and rise together as a country and overthrow the government for policies or actions that might hurt our society (like introducing a carbon tax or something stupid like that), I would appreciate the ability to be able to do so should the need arise.

      Most car drivers go thru an entire lifetime without having the need for an airbag, but we’re all glad we have them just in case we might need them. Shit happens.

      Same with guns. I’d like to have a .38 special beside the bed just in case “shit happens” and I need to blow the head off someone who is trying to kill me and my family. Currently, my only option is to have my family raped and myself assaulted and hope to god the son of a bitch doesn’t sue me for cutting his arm on the glass window he broke to get into my house.

      I’d prefer fresh bread…

    • M says:

      10:50am | 24/07/12

      Stupid argument Budz. No one is wanting that, we’re only asking for looser restrictions on small arms. I’d love to be able to buy a .22 semi auto again, but the anti gun brigade will go all spastic whilst shreiking about port arthur again. Best we can do is resist more restrictions.

      Interestingly, the UK has far more restrictive gun laws than we do, and also far more gun crime. Food for thought.

    • fml says:

      11:10am | 24/07/12

      M,

      Because there is absolutely no need for guns in a metropolitan area, what are the rates of people using guns to “protect” themselves as opposed to guns that are used in crime?

      Is it a coincidence that countries where firearms are essentially illegal have lower rates of gun crimes?

    • fml says:

      11:14am | 24/07/12

      Also note,

      That gun ownership in australia is not illegal, the buy back was only of semi automatic and pump action rifles. And no, you do not need one of those in your house.

    • M says:

      11:24am | 24/07/12

      Nobody apart from commercial fishermen need boats. Would you have them banned because of the potential of drowning,

      And of course there’s a need for guns in metropolitan areas. There’s a rifle range in hornsby for a start.

      And why should your anti gun stance determine what is right and wrong for me to buy? Have you ever been shooting? Who are you to say that I don’t need a .22 semi for something like rabbit hunting?

    • Kika says:

      11:32am | 24/07/12

      Oh god no. Assuming that gun ownership was legal simple logic will tell you that most people are idiots, therefore some idiots will own guns. Idiots with guns = bad idea.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      11:32am | 24/07/12

      The thing that scares me the most is the fact that some people are perfectly comfortable dictating what others can and cannot have. That’s scarier than any gun.

    • AdamC says:

      11:45am | 24/07/12

      “Is it a coincidence that countries where firearms are essentially illegal have lower rates of gun crimes?”

      Really, fml? That is a big call. What is it based upon?

    • James1 says:

      11:58am | 24/07/12

      What kind of shooting are you doing that an bolt action .22 wouldn’t suffice, M?  I think our gun laws strike a nice balance - you can keep guns that allow you to hunt and target shoot, you can’t keep guns that allow you to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time.

    • M says:

      12:02pm | 24/07/12

      FML, did you miss the part where I said the UK has harsher laws than we do, and yet more gun crime?

      How about sweden, which has very liberal laws and very little gun crime?

      Kika, that argument could be applied to cars, boats, bicycles, knives, saws, shovels, etc.

    • M says:

      12:23pm | 24/07/12

      James, why should my choices be restricted just because some nut job went spastic in tassie a few decades ago? Just because someone has a semi auto that is capable of killing doesn’t mean they’re going to do that. You could make the same flawed argument about where the need is for anyone to own a gun that can take down an elephant, as we have no elephants in australia.

    • James1 says:

      12:55pm | 24/07/12

      You haven’t answered my question, M.  As a shooter myself, I am genuinely interested in what practical reasons are behind your contentions, as I am perfectly satisfied with my single shot rifle and its ability to shoot rabbits and targets.

    • M says:

      01:03pm | 24/07/12

      My question answers yours mate. Our current gun laws were little more than knee jerk legislation to make howard popular. It was a roaring success by all accounts.

    • subotic says:

      01:26pm | 24/07/12

      @James1, I want a pistol, not a rifle. You can’t keep a rifle in the bottom of the drawer beside the bed to shoot intruders dead.

      Yes, that’s right, I SAID it - I want the right to defend myself in my own home with a gun. Everyone skirts this like the politically correct crap elephant in the room that it is.

      I don’t want to hunt.
      I don’t want to shoot targets at a rifle range.

      I want to blow the skulls of home invaders clean out the back of their heads. No remorse. No care or concern for the poor family of said home intruder left behind. And totally zero concern for fundamentalist born again lefties who want to control every inch of life because their own inner-artefact child can’t get over the fact daddy never hugged them enough at age 7.

      This isn’t about guns. It’s about freedom of choice. My choice.
      Not yours. Not the government. Not the criminal. Mine.

    • James1 says:

      01:37pm | 24/07/12

      I know how the gun laws came about, and as such I didn’t ask you about them.  You are answering a question I didn’t ask.

      I asked why you personally feel that the guns that can be legally purchased in Australia are not sufficient for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.  I ask because I have never had anyone answer this directly - they always resort to talking about the Port Arthur massacre and other things that are not relevant to their perceived needs, as you have here. 

      So I repeat: what can you do with a semi automatic that you can’t do with a single shot rifle?  They both hit targets, they both shoot rabbits.  I don’t understand why people get so upset, and I was hoping you could provide me with a rational explanation.

    • fml says:

      01:52pm | 24/07/12

      “Nobody apart from commercial fishermen need boats. Would you have them banned because of the potential of drowning”

      Ridiculous, Boats are not designed to kill people, I would like to see you shoot someone by using a boat.

      Rabbit hunting? Fine, Keep the guns out on the farm, not many rabbits in the city only people.

      The Uk also has a higher population with a higher density, what is the gun crime per capita, of course they are going to have a higher amount of gun crime, it is rather silly to say that 60 odd million people are going to cause less crime than 20 million.

      that argument could be applied to cars, boats, bicycles, knives, saws, shovels, etc. No it can’t, Try killing 78 people with either of those, you can do it easily with a gun, you seriously cannot tell the difference? that is what scares me about people with guns, apparently guns are just the same as bicycles, and shovels.

      Admiral,

      “The thing that scares me the most is the fact that some people are perfectly comfortable dictating what others can and cannot have. That’s scarier than any gun. ” That is bullshit, I can tell you what you can and cannot do, but you can only kill me with a gun, you are an idiot if you think that is worse.

    • M says:

      01:55pm | 24/07/12

      There’s nothing you can’t hit with a semi auto that you can’t also hit with a bolt, but that’s besides the point james.

      I get upset at shrill hollerers with an anti gun bent deciding what I can and cannot own. Effectivly, it’s the same as banning manual or automatic transmissions.

      There’s hardly a difference between the two systems, but that’s not the point, is it? The point is that, once again, the fear campaign wins over rational thought.

    • M says:

      01:58pm | 24/07/12

      I’d like to point out that I’m not like subiotic. I don’t want them for protection, I just want to be able to make my own choices. Most other people are allowed to do this, but as soon as you take up a passtime that the public is afraid of, rational thought goes out the window.

      Did you guys know that it’s possible to cycle a bolt almost as fast as a semi auto action can cycle rounds? The rate of fire argument was always a flawed one.

    • Shane* says:

      02:06pm | 24/07/12

      @Subotic,

      Fortunately, governments make decisions for the greater good. Since the VAST majority of home invasions are opportunistic break-ins while no-one is home (let alone asleep in bed), there is relatively little need to legislate for this occurrence.

      A quick google shows there are around 200 armed home invasions while people are home in Sydney each year. There are thousands that occur while no-one is home.

      So the government looks at these stats and says ‘OK, so we have to balance the right of someone to defend themselves with deadly force in the unlikely event of an aggressive home invasion versus the likelihood that wider gun ownership will see accidental injury or death rise.’

      Fortunately all the statistics say the same thing - Homes with guns are more likely to have gun-related injuries or deaths. So the government makes the call for the greater good. Thankfully.

    • Inky says:

      02:11pm | 24/07/12

      Just wanted to jump in and say that I am in no way pro-gun. In NO way.

      But as always, I am against stupid, extreme or hyperbolic arguments.

      Also, not getting into this particular pissing contest any further.

    • Kika says:

      02:15pm | 24/07/12

      True. But the subject is gun ownership. Whilst you can kill people with any of those, you’d have a better chance at being successful if you shot them.

    • James1 says:

      02:20pm | 24/07/12

      That is a whole different kettle of fish, subotic, and your views on choice are fair enough.  I disagree, because I think the reality of living in a society requires some compromises from law abiding citizens, but if you really that scared of a home invasion then I guess I can’t convince you otherwise.  Just be aware that, unless you are involved in crime, your fear of home invasion is as irrational as the people who want to ban all guns. 

      My view on this is as follows: firstly, if you want to leave a gun in a drawer, you should not be allowed to own a gun because you clearly know little about gun safety and would be a danger to both yourself and those around you.  Secondly, you are far more likely to shoot a family member accidentally than to shoot an intruder.  Thirdly, a shotgun properly stored in a locked cupboard in your bedroom would serve the same purpose, surely?  Fourthly, what does it say about a person’s childhood if they fear home invasions to the extent they would do something so unsafe as to store (presumably loaded) handguns in unlocked bedside drawers?

    • M says:

      02:32pm | 24/07/12

      Let’s try a hypothetical argument for you guys who want to ban guns/have even stricter gun control.

      Exactly how do our current laws stop someone going on a shooting rampage today with a semi automatic weapon?

    • James1 says:

      03:08pm | 24/07/12

      I don’t want stricter laws in any sense M.  I think the balance is about right at the moment.

    • subotic says:

      03:29pm | 24/07/12

      @M, ICB brother. We both want freedom of choice. Exact. Same. Thing.

      I’m just absolutely politically incorrect how I go about stating it is all….

      @Shane*, unfortunately all the statistics say the same thing - homes with dickheads are more likely to have dickhead-related injuries or deaths. Wish the government would make the call for the greater good on that one, wouldn’t ya think?

      @Inky, as always, I am totally down with stupid, extreme or hyperbolic arguments. Getting into this particular pissing contest further keeps me sane….

    • fml says:

      03:30pm | 24/07/12

      M,

      “Exactly how do our current laws stop someone going on a shooting rampage today with a semi automatic weapon? “

      It makes it more difficult to obtain such a weapon, Brevik went to prague because he thought it would be easier to get weapons of the sort there, he couldn’t. He had to obtain them legally from Norway, If they were not available in norway, it would have been even more difficult to get the weapons. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it is obviously more difficult to get these weapons where they are banned.

      The current laws prevent people who do not need (only feel they have the need) to own a semi automatic weapon.

      I wonder how the police would feel about allowing more semi automatic weapons on the street? I mean they are the ones that would be dealing with this on a daily basis, I would dare say they would be against it.

    • M says:

      03:41pm | 24/07/12

      FML. it’s easier to get a black market semi auto than it is to get a legal bolt action.

      tell me again, how do our laws stop another port aruthur incident?

    • M says:

      03:54pm | 24/07/12

      @ Shane, yes, thank god the nanny state keeps us safe at night. The only thing that came out of the gun laws that howard introduced was that gun suicides went down and car suicides went up. Some policy eh?

    • andye says:

      04:32pm | 24/07/12

      @subotic - “I want to blow the skulls of home invaders clean out the back of their heads. No remorse. No care or concern for the poor family of said home intruder left behind. And totally zero concern for fundamentalist born again lefties who want to control every inch of life because their own inner-artefact child can’t get over the fact daddy never hugged them enough at age 7.”

      You want to execute anyone who enters your house without any remorse?

      GUN APPLICATION APPROVED. HERE IS YOUR ASSAULT RIFLE SIR.

    • ADOLPH STALIN says:

      05:14pm | 24/07/12

      @ M ,Hi M I am a soldier and i like to let a few rounds off but there are too many idiots to have assault weapons out of a controlled enviroment,I recomend you buy a over under shot gun with a load of heavy buckshot.  if you cant hit someone with 2 shots in your bedroom from one of those you defenatly should not be spraying 30 rounds from a semi automatic rifle around, you would hit everything except what your aiming at,and if you do hit them at those ranges they wont be getting up again any time soon

    • MarkS says:

      08:47am | 24/07/12

      “Because it is the law’s job to drag everything out as long as possible.”

      Lawyers are paid by the hour. There is no cloud so dark that there is not a silver lining for someone.

    • Robinoz says:

      09:16am | 24/07/12

      Every society has a miniscule number of loonies who for some reason or other want to kill their fellow residents. We don’t know if they are actually insane, or just want to kill. There are others who kill in order to force their ideology on others. Recently in Baghdad 107 people were reported as having been killed in a spate of Ramadan killings. In most cases those killed were killed by their fellow muslims for being considered not sufficiently Islamic. Killing for ideological reasons is occurring daily all over the planet and is done by “sane” people following the directions in an archaic book, probably authored by a pshycopath. It’s a dangerous world, man’s inhumanity to man is still a strong feature, and it doesn’t show any signs of getting better before it gets worse. I fear we will see more of the long gunman syndrome.

    • M says:

      09:55am | 24/07/12

      Long or lone?

    • subotic says:

      11:23am | 24/07/12

      Go the “Long Gunman Syndrome”!

      Great tele-movie in that thar title.

      History Channel special?

    • chuck says:

      11:22am | 24/07/12

      Apparently Canada and the US have similar gun controls and I gather the enlightened Western European countries including Norway even more stringent so why the incidents?
      Someone with a point to prove doesn’t need an armoury only access to diesel and fertiliser! Just ask the Irish.
      “When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns” does have a ring of truth in it too.

    • Shane* says:

      11:24am | 24/07/12

      I genuinely mean the following statement, and in no way am I trolling:

      I consider people who campaign for easier access to firearms to be intellectually deficient.

      I think it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to objectively assess the facts and statistics of firearm ownership and firearm legislation and still come to the conclusion that we need more guns, automatic weapons for any reason whatsoever and less control over firearms and ammunition.

      The only sane, intelligent and socially conscious conclusion to draw is to outlaw automatic weapons completely, increase control over gun ownership, and try and reduce the total number of guns in Australia. And if you believe otherwise, you are wrong.

    • M says:

      12:09pm | 24/07/12

      Would you like to make a reasoned argument as to why you think semi automatics are a bad idea instead of questioning my intelligence? Or are you incapable of doing so because of your blatant anti gun bias?

    • James1 says:

      12:52pm | 24/07/12

      Here are my thoughts, M.  You can kill animals or hit targets just as well with a bolt action .22 as you can with a semi automatic .22 - indeed, if it is the challenge of the hunt you are after, then a single shot is far more sportsmanlike and challenging than multiple shots.  When it comes to shooting people in crowds or suchlike, your rate of killing is significantly slowed by having to work the bolt or reload after each shot, however.  Thus, there is a good argument for allowing single shot rifles but not semi automatic rifles.

      I am a shooter myself, so I have no inherent anti-gun bias yet have no problems with our gun laws.  I can still shoot things, and I see no need to do so with a semi automatic.  If our laws make it harder for people to conduct massacres with legal guns, then I support those laws.

      Why do you think that a semi automatic is necessary for your shooting pleasure?  Doesn’t a rifle that requires reloading between each shot acheive the same result?

    • M says:

      01:08pm | 24/07/12

      It’s not necessary, I just want the choice.

      And why are you implying that I’ll go on some sort of rampage if I had one?

    • Shane* says:

      01:26pm | 24/07/12

      @M,  I have a bias against a product designed with the express purpose of inflicting pain or killing a living thing. Shocking.

      I don’t care about ducks. I don’t care about kangaroos, rabbits, foxes or freaking endangered rhino.

      I care that Australia has people campaigning to increase the number of bullets they can fire without delay, because that increases the number of humans that can be shot and killed in quick succession by a single person.

      If you hunt, fine. I don’t care. But a single bullet does the job just as well as a dozen. Of course that’s also true for a lunatic entering a cinema, but it’s also the difference between 5 grieving families and 55 grieving families.

      I am not willing to pay the price of the “occasional” mass murder just so hunters can fire at will.

      But yes, I accept that bias comes into this argument, so how about you provide some stats showing how homes with guns are safer? Or stats about nations with relaxed gun laws experiencing fewer firearm deaths? Bonus points if they come from an independent source rather than the shooters party or NRA or similar.

    • M says:

      02:04pm | 24/07/12

      Shane, why do you think that I want a semi automatic to go on a rampage with?

      Like I said, it’s about choice, and about not having that choice taken away by shrill voices who are afraid of what is only a tool.

      Btw, the UK has more gun crime than we do with tighter laws, sweden has less and it has more relaxes laws. Both of these are just a google search away from you, if you can be bothered.

    • James1 says:

      02:09pm | 24/07/12

      Not at all, M, that is far from my intention, as such contentions simply distract from the actual issues.  Just trying to understand your position, which I gather is this: you have no rational reason for wanting a semi automatic, you just want the theoretical freedom to own one.

      I raise the massacres because every freedom we have in a democratic society is a balancing act. We must balance the freedom of individuals to own devices capable of killing things in large numbers with the freedom of individuals to not be killed in large numbers.  Whether I, as a gun owner, wish to go on a rampage or not is irrelevant, because the people that do exist and must be accounted for in policy development.  I accept that the price of my relative (compared to the US, say) freedom from being shot at is that I must only use single shot rifles when I go rabbit and fox hunting.  I accept that my freedom to own certain killing devices must be constrained for the sake of wider society, not because I (or you, or anyone in particular) personally might be a mass murderer, but because such people exist and must be accounted for in policy as effectively as possible.  Policy on things like gun control cannot be formulated with people like you and I in mind - they must be formulated with the lowest common demoninator in mind (ie. people like Martin Bryant, or people who shoot their family members after mistaking them for burglars, to name but two).  That is why I think we have a good balance - I like to use my rifle to hunt rabbits and foxes, and I can still do this.  People who like to shoot large numbers of people must look to other avenues to purchase their weapons, thus adding an extra layer of difficulty to that process which might prevent large numbers of killings.  Idiots who leave guns under their beds for self defence will also find it more difficult to do this, thus preventing the thousands of accidental shootings that occur in places like the US every year.  And that is the price of living in a society - your freedom will forever be constrained in minor ways by the actions of the stupid and psychopaths.

    • MarkS says:

      02:29pm | 24/07/12

      @Shane
      Switzerland is ranked number four in the world for rates of gun ownership.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership_rate

      There are some 420,000 modern full auto assault rifles in homes as well as 320,000 semi auto rifles & pistols. Yet homocide & killing by firearms is quite uncommon. Far less then in Australia. Indeed suidice is the most common firearm related death.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

      It is the nature of the reason for owing firearms that is the issue, not the owning of firearms in themselves. The simple fact is you are wrong. But you will never admit this.

      By the way have you ever fired a firearm. What personal contact do you have with firearms? Or are you the typicalignorant inner city narrow minded bigot who does even try to understand other peoples viewpoint?

    • Shane* says:

      04:08pm | 24/07/12

      Although you chose Switzerland, the unique country with no standing army that mandates militia membership and firearm training for citizens, I will engage your points. I could easily point to Brazil or the US or somewhere with insane levels of gun ownership and insane levels of gun-related deaths, but I’ll play the game.

      M: “Yet homocide & killing by firearms is quite uncommon. Far less then in Australia. “

      Switzerland’s firearm homicide rate per head of population is higher than Australia’s.

      In fact, per head of population they have higher total-death-by-firearm, homicide-by-firearm, suicide-by-firearm, AND accidental-death-by-firearm rates.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

      Thoughts? Have you just shot yourself in the foot by picking the best example of a pro-gun nation (SUI) that still falls flat when compared to Australia? Irony.

      More guns in any given country directly corresponds with more gun deaths. The purpose of the gun ownership only barely enters the equation. Why? Cos there are idiots in every country on the planet. And there are bad people in every country on the planet.

      “Bigot” is the word lazy people pull out when they can’t engage in discussion.

    • M says:

      04:29pm | 24/07/12

      What do you thin you’re doing by bringin facts into this idealogical driven debate, MarkS?

    • Kika says:

      11:28am | 24/07/12

      I have family and friends in Norway. For a population the size of Sydney this incident is really tragic for them. They have such a sense of national pride. Not in a cocky, arrogant or ‘in your face’ way, but in a subtle yet estoic sense of nationality that can best be seen every May 17 on their National Day. They pride themselves of inclusion, yet are firm in their expectations for immigrants to assimilate. They criticise the way their neighbours in Sweden have allowed the non assimilation of immigrants - but they have the size and ability for people to move in without being absorbed into the community. Norway is a bit different - especially on the west coast.
      The wounds of the Nazi occupation and post WWII reconstruction is palpable. Their country was ruined and many immigrants left to find better lives in America and around the world. But they rebuilt and rebuilt they did into one of the world’s wealthiest countries. My family and friends still feel ashamed of Breivik and what he has done. He has changed the vibe and sense of pan Norwegian pride in being one of the worlds wealthiest, liberal and free societies. For one of their own to massacre their children (one of Norway’s greatest and most cherished assets) is just unforgiveable. Bless you Norway! I’ll come back as soon as I can!!!

    • trevor says:

      11:43am | 24/07/12

      Unfortunately a Smith and Wesson will always beat 4 aces…

    • Petery says:

      12:08pm | 24/07/12

      there seems little rational need for owning a gun in the suburbs.  It would have little value in protecting your house against home invasion, because surely a sensible gun owner would not leave a loaded Gun under his pillow or in the living room. you are not going to have time to get it out of it’s gun cabinet and load it in time, and even if you did you multiply the chances of an innocent party being injured or killed in the heat of the moment.Then you would face even more awkward questions from the police,because no one is going to just get let you off with a pat on the head and just your word for it that this was a scum bag breaking into your home that deserved to die.

      People watch and believe too much about what happens in fictional scenarios on television,and forget real life is much messier and complicated. Scared people use guns,because without them they feel they are nothing. The biggest coward in the room is likely to the man holding the biggest gun. 

      Guns make you feel secure, but also convey a false sense of invincibility to the person holding them.People who claim they want to have guns for protection also make the assumption that all will turn out for the best and the bad guys will be over powered just by pointing a gun at them. There is too much bullshit mythology attached to guns from watching them used too often in too many films.
      these are some reasons why I doubt that owning a gun for protection against a supposed home invasion would ever be really useful. Since home invasions by psychopaths tend to be fairly rare in the real world, even if they happen every night on TV, it might be better to take our chances with bare fists,golf clubs,cricket bats against an intruder of that sort,given the remote possibility of it ever really happening. Cringing in fear waving a semi automatic at what is more likely an unarmed intruder seems to be an example of overkill, no pun intended.

      this was intended to be a set of rational comments about ownership of weapons for so called protection.There are no doubt plenty of other sorts of reasons for owning a gun in such circumstances, but I just don’t happen to think most of them are valid or the fanciful scenarios people weave around their reasons for such gun ownership truly believable.

    • alan says:

      12:34pm | 24/07/12

      people forget so fast ,that AMERICA was fought and won by the GUN,they will never give up that right,,there are over 400 million guns or more in america,nearly EVER one has one.yes they will have mad people gunning down others,that will never stop it,its their mentality mine,too much stress,too much drugs.too many gorrie movies,too much blood movies,it all adds up,plus NO jobs and getting worse,the only thing left to them, soon for americans is THEIR GUNS. we could be the same,with all the boat people mostly muslims bringing their gun culture killings,cruel ways and more with them,as they are getting away from their own countries with their evil ways everywhere,their killing ways, rapes and so on and so,.
      yes it will happen here and has,as in sydney now.

    • subotic says:

      02:13pm | 24/07/12

      Tinfoil, Aisle 7, shelf 3….

    • Petery says:

      12:38pm | 24/07/12

      @M

      the same may apply to cars,boats,shovels,etc, but there is one big difference between those essentially useful objects and guns. Guns were designed simply to kill, and apart from that there was no logical reason for them to exist. Unless you can establish a degree of usefulness for them, then you should not own them.  they were not designed as instruments for use in sporting tournaments,any more than the bow and arrow was invented for the same reason.

      in the days of the wild frontier, they may have played an useful role in hunting.However the majority of people living in suburbs don’t hunt for food. I must admit though seeing someone blast a hole with a semi automatic into a feral Big Mac would be a sight to see.

    • Max Power says:

      01:49pm | 24/07/12

      Cars were built for transport, not racing, therefore motor sport should be banned. If you live in a metropolitan area with public transport, there is simply no need for someone to own a car. 
      Boats were built for fishing, trade and warfare, so boats should be banned for recreational use.
      Aircraft were built primarily for warfare and later were used for transport. Therefore planes should be banned for recreational and sporting use.

      Planes, Boats and Automobiles/Motorcycles were never invented for recreational or sporting purposes, anymore than the gun and Bow and arrow were. So unless you can establish a degree of usefulness for them, other than recreation or sporting, or simply because you do not wish to use public transport, then you should not own them.

    • fml says:

      02:48pm | 24/07/12

      Max Power,

      “Cars were built for transport, not racing, therefore motor sport should be banned.” This is not an argument, motor sport cannot be used to intentionally go on killing sprees.

      What scares me is that pro gun advocates can not see the difference between gun control and owning a shovel or riding on a bus.

      P.S. I would rather ride on a bus with people who liked motor sport than on a bus with someone who is carrying a gun. I wonder why.

    • James1 says:

      02:51pm | 24/07/12

      I hope you don’t own an iPad, Petery, as they are the most useless device invented in all of human history.

      So what if I don’t need to hunt?  I like to hunt, I own a gun that is perfectly legal, and I store is in a way that is perfectly safe.  Why should I give that up because it is not “useful”?

    • Petery says:

      03:12pm | 24/07/12

      @max power
      One of us is missing the point. All these inventions serve a large number of constructive purposes and none were originally designed for killing. and the Wright Brothers did not invent aircraft for purposes of war.

      guns sole reason for existence is to kill,maim or hurt things. they were invented for no other reason. people using them for sport would have to go without .

      if the gun was a human it would be classified as retarded because of it’s limited usefulness. I hope no guns are insulted by my comment.
      Remember guns don’t have feelings only people do

    • Petery says:

      03:37pm | 24/07/12

      @James
      since you are behaving legally, you say, I don’t think I have a problem,but that does not destroy my point about it not being useful. You apparently agree with it.

      yes I wrote this on this on a useless I pad.Poor me, but unlike a gun it can be used for a constructive and not just a destructive purpose.

      Would you agree that some of the pro gun nuts on this page are easy to make fun of, and when they get angry or irritated, do they want to play with their guns and calm down?

      gee, some gun people get

    • Max Power says:

      04:05pm | 24/07/12

      Just because guns were designed for killing, is no reason for people to be stopped from enjoying their choice of sport or recreation. Though I would argue that guns were not designed to kill people. Bullets and projectiles were designed to kill people, the gun was designed to be the tool to launch them in a manner more effective than a bow, sling or throw.

      It is exactly Petery’s point, his point was guns weren’t designed for any other purpose other than killing. His logic is that because they were not intended for sporting or recreational use when they were invented, means that they shouldn’t be able to be used in a sporting or recreational manner now.

      By applying Petery’s logic, cars, planes and boats, were not intially designed for recreational or sporting use, so therefore should not be used in such manner.

      A gun is no more of a weapon than a baseball bat, kinife, car, piece of wood, screw driver or any other tool or implement you can think of that could be used to kill someone. A firearm like any other tool or implement only becomes a weapon when it is being used in a manner which could kill or used for the express purpose of killing someone.

      The most dangerous weapon in Australia is the car, more people die as a result of cars than guns. The moment you use your car in a manner which is unsafe, ie speeding, running red lights, failing to give way, not stopping at stop signs, drink driving, drug drving etc, you turn your car into to a weapon.
      Yet you are more than happy to allow cars to be used as weapons by millions of Australian’s everyday, wtihout banning or restricting their use and ownership.

      And the argument about people walking around in public with concealed firearms in Australia is a strawman argument. As no licenced, law abiding gun owner would do it and no licenced law abiding gun owners are asking for it. Why should the law abiding majority be punished for the actions of the criminal minority?

      Once again you are happy to force your beliefs and morals onto others, yet whinge when others force their beliefs and morals onto you.

    • Petery says:

      05:14pm | 24/07/12

      @max power again
      though I find it rather strange that recreational shooters like to kill things, nowhere did I say they should not be allowed to do it if they are licensed.
      I just think guns are overrated,compared to other things,Go ahead, shoot,but some of us prefer to make love not hunt.
      the penis used for procreative purposes is like it or not probably more beneficial to humanity than a gun firing blanks.

    • Mark/Fox says:

      07:36pm | 24/07/12

      @ petery says

      The most dangerous weapon we have in the world is the penis!
      It controls mens minds and make them make decisions they would normally not make.
      But seriously, our society has become sick because of overpopulation and overcrowding.
      It was fortunate that in the incident in the USA the person used the firearm in the cinema and not the explosives that he had rigged in his flat or they would be still sifiting through the rubble for bodies.

    • Petery says:

      10:23pm | 24/07/12

      @mark/fox
      I never said it was not dangerous,but playing with a penis kills less people than playing with a gun. There are several people here that apparently regard owning a gun as more important to their manhood than owning a penis. I suspect they would gladly surrender their penises for the privilege of being able to have unrestricted use of an automatic weapon to fire at the side of a barn door for hours and hours.

    • Petery says:

      08:22pm | 24/07/12

      @ max power again

      sorry,but reading some of your amusing comments I can’t resist one last cheap crack ( I almost said shot)

      you are more than happy to allow the use of cars as weapons everyday without
      Restriction or banning - say what
      for a start I am not happy about it and I thought people were banned from driving,losing licences for drunk driving and being restricted for this murderous behavior on the roads. in which state in Australia does this not happen or are you confused with some movie you saw? 

      I am totally confused about whatever point you are making about concealed weapons. Definitely a straw man as you say,but as you as a shooter would know straw men are great for target practice.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter