We can leave religion out of this one. If you need a simple label, make it Nazi.Filthybastrd

Again, he isn't a Nazi (at least judging from the posts he made on various forums) - if anything, his politics resemble a Norwegian version of the Tea Party.

To speculate that it was a Muslim-extremist is perfectly fine, and I see no problem with it, seeing as it's becoming the norm with terrorist attacks. You don't see any buddhist monks committing acts of terror regularly, but Muslim-extremists are.SpartanMSU

Please provide some sources, otherwise it's pointless to argue further.

A logical and rational person would immediately think the person was a Muslim, given recent history. As long as people don't say "the terrorist is in fact a Muslim" without knowing for sure, then it wouldn't be ok. But speculation is perfectly fine. EVERYONE does it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. It's impossible to survive without specualtion or assumptions.

I don't see what's so difficult about this.

SpartanMSU

The problem is that some media jumped to conclusions with little to no evidence and even after it was revealed that the terrorist was a conservative Christian, some still speculated how/why this could be a Muslim attack. It is perfectly understandable to be angry for such prejudice.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

It's not odd. As far as I know, many Norwegians are not really keen on having armed personnel everywhere. They probably thought that having security there before the PM arrived was not necessary.Verge_6

Who's calling for armed personnel everywhere? 2-3 cops on an island where your nation's leader is about to make an appearance is hardly something that's uncalled for. Quite sad that over 90 people had to die due to this sort of lax security. A single armed officer could have made all the difference.

Treflis already responded to this. Anyway, my original point was that this event should not reinforce one's opinion to be "pro gun", since the legality of guns did not prevent it from happening.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]They certainly were at the many boy-scout camp trips I took. Pointing out the V-TECH massacre as a reason that guns being present doesn't matter is simply a poor comparison, due to the pointed out ban of guns on the facility.Verge_6

I would assume that there was a ban of guns at the Labour Party's youth camp as well.

It's not odd. As far as I know, many Norwegians are not really keen on having armed personnel everywhere. They probably thought that having security there before the PM arrived was not necessary.

They certainly were at the many boy-scout camp trips I took. Pointing out the V-TECH massacre as a reason that guns being present doesn't matter is simply a poor comparison, due to the pointed out ban of guns on the facility.Verge_6

I would assume that there was a ban of guns at the Labour Party's youth camp as well.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]Did the legal status of guns prevent the Virginia Tech massacre?Verge_6

Actually, V-TECH was a clearly labeled no-gun zone, so....

Precisely. Do you think weapons are allowed on a youth summer camp?

This whole situation is why I'm pro gun. If this had happened in Texas the man might have shot 3 before coming under hail of civillian gun-fire. Here teenagers went through hell while waitingforty ****ing minutes for a SWAT team to show up. I understand the man had a smart plan, use the bomb as a diversion then terrorize somewhere else while the police are preoccupied, but 40 minutes is absolutely unnaceptable. You can bet there's going to be imitators in the coming years.jamejame

Did the legal status of guns prevent the Virginia Tech massacre? I don't think so. As such, it would not give the teenagers at the youth summer camp much help either.

whereas Muslim extremists, and there's many of themnousername66

Give us some proof, if you don't have any (which I assume you don't) then stop being islamophobic.