One of the worst mass murders happened in 2011 in Norway. This was where Anders Breivik blew up eight people outside of Norway’s government building with a car bomb. Then he shot and killed 69 individuals, most of whom were in their teens and had gone camping. Therefore making it a total of 77 lives that he took. He was an obsessive right-wing protesting “multiculturalism.”
Despite the deaths, there was another thing that was on people’s minds and that was Norway’s unpreparedness for the situation. At the time in the country had a single police helicopter in use, and its crew was on holiday. The nationwide alarm systems failed to alert the police stations to the killer’s plate number, as he was fleeing Oslo.
However, it did not end there when he reached the island of Utøya for phase two of his plan the police were slow to respond. In the wake of all this and after the public inquiry’s findings, the chief of police in Norway resigned.
Despite these mistakes and failures during the atrocity, there were ways in which dealt with the situation correctly. In Norway, there is no such thing as a life sentence, a maximum sentence penalty given is that of 21 years, this can be extended by five years if the prisoner shows that they are still a threat to the public. He was given the maximum sentence, and a court found that he was sane and was responsible for his actions.
During the trial, in court Breivik, was wearing civilian clothing, and he was allowed to chastise the judge, question the judge’s impartiality, and made extended mission statements, and despite all that they eventually politely demanded that he be quiet.
Earlier this year he even won a human rights case against the government for the unfair treatment he received while in prison. To many in other countries, this may seem like something out of satirical comedy piece. However, this shows the capability of the society in Norway to be able to take in the horror that happened and continue with their business. This obvious leniency which can be seen in the rule of law and it the requirement of treating every human, even a mass murder, with the same level of dignity, and this crushed the aims of the killer more firmly than any wilder responses would have.
After such horrific incident, there are many topics up for discussion, most of them are regarding the person who committed the atrocity. One of them on wondering whether the individual was insane or was he a political terrorist with an agenda?
There is also one more thing that should be known is that after this massacre the country has not faced any other mass shootings, which is something that cannot be said about the United States. Many might assume that is because Norwegians do not have guns, however, it is not due to the lack of guns. Many Norwegians are allowed and do own guns. The difference is in that the idea and culture of owning a gun are very different in Norway and the United States. For example in Norway is very uncommon to see a gun outside of an organized setting, like a gun club or hunting season. Many keep their guns locked down and stored away.
The law enforcement in both countries approaches firearms in totally different ways as well. The law enforcement in Norway is not armed. Many would consider there no point of having law enforcement, however, Norwegians believe that if the police are not armed, and then the criminals are not armed, and neither is anyone else.
After what has happened in Orlando, many Americans and Lawmakers are questioning whether to increase or in some cases to decrease, the regulation of guns. However, this change in their laws was not something that Norway considered doing. They did however set up a committee that proposed stricter gun laws, however, none of the proposals was really put into effect. Norway believed they already had restrictive laws and there were few gun accidents and murders done through the use of guns.
You may be wondering then how was he able to get access to his weapons. He obtained the weapons because he had a license. Breivik wrote in his manifesto that he obtained his ammunition from a U.S. supplier that he purchased from, who mailed it to him. This just shows how interconnected our world is. It is shown how despite the States’ efforts, those efforts were undermined because of their jurisdiction was thwarted by the lax approach towards the acquisition of such materials of other states.
Despite this, we are shown that it is possible to live “with” gun and not “through” them. American only needs to find a way that will suit our country and the issues and ideas that our country deals has.
