Dum Dum...

[bugbear]

I'm back, personally I cannot see anything wrong in this instance of administering a harmless drug that makes it easy for questions to be answered. That is not torture if the drug is harmless, they don't half gabble on the operating table when they have medical treatment I am informed.

Indeed. They're also highly suggestible, and prone to saying anything the questioner want to hear, which is why it's done less than you might have thought, even by people with no moral qualms.

BugBear

 

[devonwoody]

Oh yeah, a few names would be very informative to investigate, anyway with then some corroborative evidence as well. Are you a softie?

He is hardly likely to tell you his conspirators.

 

[Mark A]

Hollow point rounds are designed to expand on impact, effectively multiplying the diameter. This causes the round to decelerate faster than standard ammunition, releasing the full kinetic energy into the tissue and causing maximum damage through cavitation while minimising the risk of over-penetration.They're prohibited for use in warfare, but legal for use by police and civilians.

This is the effect of a hollow point round on ballistic gelatin.

The fact that he used this ammunition against indefensible kids is shocking, and only adds to tragedy of what happened.

ANFO bombs are made from Ammonium Nitrate (used as fertiliser) and Fuel Oil, although diesel or nitromethane can also be used. These are common materials, so are undetectable to the unsuspecting. How wrong could they be...

Mark

 

[brianhabby]

I really don't understand all the fuss about what kind of bullets were used or how effective different ones are.

What the hell difference does it make what bullets he used? All those young people would be just as dead irrespective of the type of ammunition or for that matter weapon that was used.

regards

Brian

 

[Benchwayze]

I All those young people would be just as dead irrespective of the type of ammunition or for that matter weapon that was used.

regards

Brian

Not necessarily Brian.
A standard round might hit a less vulnerable part of the body and go straight through. Bad enough, but not necessarily fatal.
An expanding round can remove a limb or maybe even two depending on the direction of impact. That could result in death through shock and/or blood loss.
In the case of someone being injured in a 'non-fatal' spot, the speed of response of course would make a difference.

But yes, to use expanding rang does indicate vindictiveness. as would using a combat shotgun at close range.
Either way he is a murderer as it turns out , and he should be treated as such.

John

 

[devonwoody]

Off the subjects of bullets again, isn't anyone interested or would like the authorities to know of his associates throughout Europe including UK.

Is he going to divulge them voluntary?

So how would you get them, asking him nicely?

Or offer him a reduced sentence for the information?

 

[kmcleod]

Interesting that the suspect was held in solitary for a week before being interrogated, softening him up maybe ?

The authorities have also stated that they are trying everything possible to have him confirmed as being 'SANE' at the time of the attacks, so that he can be tried under Norwegian law.

I have every hope that the law in Norway comes down as hard as possible on this guy.

As for the rest,,,my personal views
- 'what the hell does it matter what bullets were used' - it matters because it goes to the mindset of the person committing the crime, it is one thing to shoot someone, a horrible and heinous act, however, to use bullets that are designed to cause maximum damage shows that the assilant is coldly calculating that not only does he want to kill, he also wants to maim and inflict pain and suffering on this victims should he not succeed in killing them.
- my heart goes out to everyone affected by this, not only the family and friends of the 76 who died, but to everyone who now looks over their shoulder or reacts when a loud noise is heard. Having grown up in a country during a pro-longed terrorist attack, (yes Britain), and having seen first hand what the effects are bombs and bullets are, I know first hand how hard it can be to return to normality post an attack.
- investigation, trial and punishment - given the suspect has admitted the crimes, then he should be interrogated rigoursly, to find out accomplices, those who helped, both directly and with information - (and someone had to help him build that bomb), then a trial, and the full weight of the law descend on him.
- does he deserve a bullet - in my view - yes, but that's MY view, for some crimes, there should be no other response than to remove that person from society permanently, without placing the burden of looking after them on society.

 

[Jacob]

Off the subjects of bullets again, isn't anyone interested or would like the authorities to know of his associates throughout Europe including UK.

...

I think he spelled it out in his manifesto and indirectly by his internet posts. It included the so called English Defence League (a breakaway from the BNP) and a whole collection of loony right sources such as Melanie Phillips and the Daily Mail!
I see no one has popped up to blame the tightness of the Norwegian gun laws, which is odd. From past experience you'd might expect moronic comments like "if they all had had guns he wouldn't have stood a chance".

 

[Digit]

"if they all had had guns he wouldn't have stood a chance".

Which would of course be perfectly logical, normal logic of course, not yours as you have stated before.
Perhaps you would care to disprove that point in some way?
Please note that I am not suggesting that widespread gun ownership is desirable, just how you make out such a statement to be incorrect.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

"if they all had had guns he wouldn't have stood a chance".

Which would of course be perfectly logical, normal logic of course, not yours as you have stated before.
Perhaps you would care to disprove that point in some way?
Please note that I am not suggesting that widespread gun ownership is desirable, just how you make out such a statement to be incorrect.

Roy.

The first fault in the apparent logic is that for them all to have guns would presuppose a society in which gun ownership was relatively uncontrolled.
In places where this is the case (USA a prime example) the figures for deaths by gun are extremely high. There would have been far more gun deaths overall in the wider population.
And as we know, from the various gun events in USA, wider gun ownership is not a deterrent, quite the opposite - it creates more opportunities for the psychopath.
The second fault is the assumption that sufficient numbers would be carrying arms and be prepared for a shoot out. Even in the USA this is rarely the case.

You could work this out for yourself Digit, if you would just try a bit harder. Get your thinking cap on!

 

[Benchwayze]

Friend of mine went to stay with one of his friends in the USA.
One evening he decided to go for his evening stroll. Walking by a driveway, it seemed he set off some guy's security light. Almost immediately my friend was challenged by a shotgun-wielding resident, wanting to know why anyone would be walking the street after dark.

Is that what we want here? :?:

John :?

 

[Digit]

You could work this out for yourself Digit,

I could/did and now perhaps you would answer the question I put to you. I'l make it simpler, taking your 'moronic' point please demonstrate how

"if they all had had guns he wouldn't have stood a chance".

is moronic.

would presuppose a society in which gun ownership was relatively uncontrolled.

Irrelevant to my question.

The second fault is the assumption that sufficient numbers would be carrying arms and be prepared for a shoot out.

Also irrelevant.

You stated that "if they all had had guns he wouldn't have stood a chance". was moronic, now you are trying to argue that they would not all have been carrying weapons etc. I claimed that that statement is logical, the type of logic where 2 plus 2 equals 4, not sommetimes, not most of the time, but all the time, so please, put the goal posts back into place and explain how that statement is moronic?

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

dum dum dumty dum :shock:

 

[Digit]

Stop wriggling Jacob! You constantly make these throw away comments, now substantiate it.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Ding ding, round two . (hammer) (hammer) (hammer)

 

[Digit]

As I see it DW Jacob has accused those who hold a different opinion to him as being 'moronic'. I think that requires some justification.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

So you do hold that opinion! I thought as much, even though you denied it at the beginning.
Dum dum dumty dum etc

 

[Digit]

So you do hold that opinion!

Do I? Where did I say that, where did I deny it? Also your attempts to change the subject won't work Jacob. You are still wrigging, when ever cornered you move the goal posts. You should be a politician.
Now, about an answer to my question? You've accused people of being moronic in a specific set of circumstances, I consider it reasonable to ask you to justify it.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

I think you will have to work it out for yourself Digit.

 

[Digit]

I work that out as meaning that you will not answer the question, correct?

Roy.