https://www.newsweek.com/unarmed-police-ordered-carry-guns-after-bow-arrow-massacre-norway-1638736

Where I’m getting this from.

27 comments

  2. Just to clarify, the arming of the police is a temporary measure, which has been used from time to time when either there has been an attack or if the risks for an attack is elevated (defined by the PST (The Police Security Service, more of a tactical and analytic division)).

    As for general arming it depends on who you ask. Some want, some don’t. It seems that the more Conservative your veiw is, the more likely it is that you want general arming of the police. Last great debate on this topic was after the 22 July terror attack, but ultimately it was decided that arming the police would not be beneficial. The reasoning for this were (amongst other things):

    * A harder society. If every thug out there knows that the police will potentially shot them for petty stuff, then there will be an arms race
    * As the police today has to ask for approval for guns in a operation, there are naturally several steps of escalation in a conflict. With general arming this will be reduced, which could let to much worse interacting between police and those breaking the law (tied with point 1)
    * The police is trained for weapon use, but are not used (both mentally and practical) for continously arming. The police would need updated training, instructions and law regulations if this was to become permanent

    Me personally I think guns won’t solve much issues. There already are effective regulations and possibilities to use guns when necessary, and as everyone knows that police will use steps of escalation to diffuse the situations, the dynamic in the operations seems to work better than in countries where first reaction is to point gun at whatever thug.

  3. It won’t matter. Police only use their guns to kill depressed, suicidal males with no prior history of violence.

    Oh! And themselves. Police shoot themselves in the foot a lot.

    The police were armed when they first encountered the assailant in Kongsberg. They had their guns upon their person. Still they didn’t do anything and allowed him to escape and later kill 5 people.

    The police being armed doesn’t matter. They are still utterly useless cowards. We might as well start thinking about arming ourselves. Because Norwegian police only care about their own safety, not ours.

  4. Normally they keep the weapons locked down in the patrol vehicles, and ask/are order to arm up via radio on their way to a crime.

    Only difference now is that the pistol is on the belt all the time. It’s semantics, to keep the normal public calm etc.

  6. We’re probably going to see the same thing as last time: A spike in police injuries and no actual reduction in violent crime.

  8. Seeing armed police is just a reminder that the lack of privacy for the greater good is just bullshit(and against our constitution, unless you’re a criminal).

    It’s not like they weren’t warned about that killer and they did nothing. It’s not the lack of armed police that is the problem. Not the slightest.

  9. Ideally, officers should be able to arm themselves quickly when needed but not walk around with a loaded gun in their belt if on a totally non-threatening mission in a public place. Maybe that’s a bit too have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.

    I guess it’s just inevitable that it will be permanent at some point if the violence in organized crime continues (or becomes much worse like in Sweden), credible terror threats are frequent and you have lunatics on killing sprees like in Kongsberg*.

    I really do think the combination of unarmed police and it being very difficult to get ahold of guns (especially those not designed to kill moose) is a big reason that Norway feels so safe.

    * Yes, it could still be defined as an act of terrorism.

  13. Even though Norway has the lowest mortality rate when it comes to death by firearms in the world, I think it’s rather weird that the police force does not regularly carry this at all times.

    That being said, I am fully aware that this might lead to deaths that should’ve been handled differently besides the use of gun.

    But I’d rather have the cops be armed and ready in an instants notice instead of them running around like chickens finding and assembling the firearms and then wait for the ethics professor on the other side of the country to give them the green light

  14. As long as the assholes use guns, so should those people who lay their life on the line to keep us secure.
    If only to protect themselves.
    I can’t believe it’s even a discussion…

  16. The police being armed is one thing, but the fact that their guns dont have a safety mechanism is beyond stupid.
    Its like they are bound to fail…

  17. Honestly, I’m more worried about the police being complete uther morons and hurting themselves, rather than Norway suddenly becoming no.1 on the statistic of number of people killed by cops

  26. Purely PR spin to make folk feel safe.

    Notice how no one mentions the less ‘Hollywood’ concepts of having more visibility on patrol / cancelling leave / increasing overtime where needed etc.

  27. There are some real trade-offs here, I think. Having weapons more at the ready does allow police to deal more easily with some types of ongoing violence.

    But people (not just cops) tend to use more of the tools they have more easy access to, and to shape their worldview and identity around the material conditions they’re in. I fear that a more generally armed police force would be more prone to using guns even in situations where it would be better to deescalate or use non-lethal methods.

    All in all I think that having guns locked in the cars in ordinary times and arming up in times of increased risk is a pretty good compromise. That said, I don’t quite see how the Kongsberg murders have increased the overall risk here, given that the murderer acted alone. Maybe there is a risk of copycat killers?

Leave a Reply