BREAKING NEWS: Explosion at Norway Prime Ministers Office

[Zaune]

The report also included mildly amusing story how Breivik went to Prague, in his opinion dark ex-soviet city being center of illegal weapons trade, only to find modern, bright tourist city, where everyone (taxi drivers, prostitutes) looked like he was a madman when he asked for contact how to buy AK-47. He left saying the only dangerous thing you can find there is lager. A pity he wasn't stopped then, if it's true.

Also, yet another proof falsifying this old, tired NRA shit about 'wrongdoers buying illegal' - I wonder when we wake up and do to guns the same thing Europe is not doing to cigarettes

They're not that hard to get hold of if you know the right people, though they certainly aren't cheap; the going rate for the Chinese copy in the UK was about US$2000 each last I heard (I really don't want to talk about how or why I know this) and they turn up every so often in gang wars. Banning automatic weapons, handguns etc can drive the black-market price beyond the range of your average crook, but it wouldn't do much more than seriously inconvenience someone who was determined to commit a massacre like this at any cost.

[Irbis]

They're not that hard to get hold of if you know the right people, though they certainly aren't cheap; the going rate for the Chinese copy in the UK was about US$2000 each last I heard (I really don't want to talk about how or why I know this) and they turn up every so often in gang wars. Banning automatic weapons, handguns etc can drive the black-market price beyond the range of your average crook, but it wouldn't do much more than seriously inconvenience someone who was determined to commit a massacre like this at any cost.

Oh, I'm not naive enough to believe ban would magically get rid of all illegal guns, though there are a few tricks you could use to deplete supply faster. Such a ban would need to be at least continent-wide, sure, to be effective. Still, diminishing supply would be worthy cause in itself, make the job of a typical crook much harder, and, as the really disarmed societies show, it could end up country safer.

As for the point of massacres, well, transforming country from a state where everyone determined can make Bieslan, to state where (as I described in one of the last posts) would be killer can only get a knife at best, has virtually no downsides and all the positives, IMHO. Note that the Norway killing consumed 250.000 euro and demanded possession of big, advanced farm to buy sufficient amount of fertilizer, as well as 10 years of planning - and killed a handful of people, as opposed to buying 5-10 of 60$ AK-47 knockoffs to arm your group with, as is the situation in Caucasus or Northern Mexico. How is the state where potential killers have to dump more money than most people on this planet will ever see to make small bombing less preferable than the other one?

[Lord Zentei]

Oh, I'm not naive enough to believe ban would magically get rid of all illegal guns, though there are a few tricks you could use to deplete supply faster. Such a ban would need to be at least continent-wide, sure, to be effective. Still, diminishing supply would be worthy cause in itself, make the job of a typical crook much harder, and, as the really disarmed societies show, it could end up country safer.

As for the point of massacres, well, transforming country from a state where everyone determined can make Bieslan, to state where (as I described in one of the last posts) would be killer can only get a knife at best, has virtually no downsides and all the positives, IMHO. Note that the Norway killing consumed 250.000 euro and demanded possession of big, advanced farm to buy sufficient amount of fertilizer, as well as 10 years of planning - and killed a handful of people, as opposed to buying 5-10 of 60$ AK-47 knockoffs to arm your group with, as is the situation in Caucasus or Northern Mexico. How is the state where potential killers have to dump more money than most people on this planet will ever see to make small bombing less preferable than the other one?

Public gun ownership does not automatically lead to a Beslan type situation. Switzerland has among the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and they're doing just fine. Neither does the implementation of gun laws lead to reduction in violent crimes. I'm all for rigorous background checks and strict requirements involving gun safety training, as well as possible revocation of license in the face of damning evidence, but reducing supply simply for the sake of reducing supply cannot be justified. You need to show that it leads to less crime, and singular events, however horrifying, shouldn't be used for that since that would be argument from anecdote.

Diminishing supply also causes people to be less able to defend themselves - Breivik would hardly have been able to kill all of those people with impunity for over an hour if gun ownership were common (though that's debatable in this particular instance, since many of the victims were kids). Even if getting guns is harder for criminals given restrictive laws, they will still be able to get them, and more importantly, they will get them far more easily than law abiding citizens, in contrast to the situation prior to restrictions being imposed.

Furthermore, as Breivik showed, this kind of creep can kill people just as easily with perfectly legal fertilizer and diesel oil. Consider: he only used 500 kg of the fertilizer out of 6 tonnes, and he managed to kill 8 and wound 90 people with that. If he had used all of it, then the casualties would have been far higher, quite possibly rivaling the number of people he killed with firearms. Eliminating public gun ownership does nothing to change that.

[Simon_Jester]

Irbis, you seem to be missing something.

On the one hand, you talk about the near-anarchy of a place where you can buy masses of AK-series rifles for a hundred dollars each, and where the government is too weak to stop organized crime from using those weapons. Like northern Mexico.

On the other hand, you talk about places where buying a single AK-series rifle is legal, but costs thousands of dollars. And where organized crime is dealt with harshly by law enforcement. Like the US.

You do not seem to perceive any difference between these things. Why not?

In the US, ownership of automatic weapons is legal, but has no effect on crime rates. Because the legally owned weapons are not being used to commit crimes. In theory, the legal market might slightly increase the black market supply of automatic weapons, but since those weapons are already illegal and being smuggled around the country, banning the legal weapons wouldn't really change the situation very much.

In a place like northern Mexico, it doesn't matter whether there are laws against owning automatic weapons or not, because the criminals are more powerful than the police and can own whatever they please.

[LadyTevar]

Oslo bomb victim is back at work after surviving spike through head

OSLO, Norway — A woman working in Oslo's Justice Department when last week's bomb exploded is back at work, just five days after escaping the building — with, unbeknownst to her at the time, a foot-long piece of debris lodged in her head.

Line Nersnaes, a 50-year-old legal adviser, was in her office on the 11th floor when a car bomb ripped through central Oslo, killing eight people. The force of the blast shattered a nearby wooden window, sending a 12-inch splinter through her chin and up through her skull.

"I was at my desk when I heard this violent blast," Nersnaes told The Daily Mail. "The glass in the window is laminated so it did not shatter, but the whole window frame splintered and came towards me."

The bombing was part of twin terror attacks by self-confessed killer Anders Behring Breivik, an anti-Islam zealot. After the blast, Breivik shot 69 people at a summer camp for youths of the ruling Labor Party on the island of Utoya, off of Oslo.

Nersnaes was knocked out of her desk chair and pinned against the wall when the bomb detonated, she said.

"I have to admit, I didn't even know that this wooden spike had drilled into my head, through my chin," Nersnaes told The Daily Telegraph. "Everybody who survived understood immediately that we had to get out of the building as fast as possible."

Nersnaes said shards of glass were everywhere, but she managed to find the stairs to get out. Colleagues and blast survivors were staring at her in bewilderment, she said.

"I met my boss Knut Fosli in the hallway," Nersnaes told the Telegraph. During the difficult journey down the stairs, "I told him that I had this terrible headache. He looked at me and said, 'You've got something sticking out of your head.'"

Outside, Nersnaes put her hand to her head, and could tell she was bleeding a lot.

"It felt like my head had been torn apart," she told The Daily Mail. "I got so terrified when I realized that I had something in my head."

She was rushed to the hospital with other blast victims. Shortly after, hospital staff started shouting that many more victims were arriving, this time from the Utoya island shooting.


Miraculously, the spike hadn't pierced her brain or any vital organs. Surgeons removed it, gave Nersnaes 27 stitches, and bandaged her head. Having sustained only superficial injuries, she was released to go home at 8:30 that night.

"I feel I've had some luck in all this bad luck," she said. "I'm very lucky to be alive."

On Friday, Norway held the first funerals for victims of massacre.

Back at work, Nersnaes told The Daily Mail that she is determined to finish a government paper on domestic violence she was working on when the explosion went off.

Despite not having a replacement computer yet working at a school desk with a paper and pen, Nersnaes told The Daily Mail, "I think it will be difficult to make my August 10 deadline, but I promise I will have the document on domestic violence ready before Christmas."

Nersnaes did not respond to a request for comment from msnbc.com.

[ChaserGrey]

Every time I see a story like that it makes me feel humble. There's so much we still don't understand about the brain.

[Darmalus]

Every time I see a story like that it makes me feel humble. There's so much we still don't understand about the brain.

ummm

Miraculously, the spike hadn't pierced her brain or any vital organs. Surgeons removed it, gave Nersnaes 27 stitches, and bandaged her head. Having sustained only superficial injuries, she was released to go home at 8:30 that night.

That said, she's a very lucky person.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, there's not much to understand- the spike didn't go into her brain in the first place. Don't ask me how, looking at that photograph I can't understand it either.

Or am I misreading the article?

[Edi]

In this case, there's not much to understand- the spike didn't go into her brain in the first place. Don't ask me how, looking at that photograph I can't understand it either.

Or am I misreading the article?

From the chin upwards through the facial bone structure, cheek and directly past up the eye to erupt out of the temple or frontal forehead is an area where it only injures bones, soft tissue and such, but does not touch the brain.

[Broomstick]

Furthermore, as Breivik showed, this kind of creep can kill people just as easily with perfectly legal fertilizer and diesel oil. Consider: he only used 500 kg of the fertilizer out of 6 tonnes, and he managed to kill 8 and wound 90 people with that. If he had used all of it, then the casualties would have been far higher, quite possibly rivaling the number of people he killed with firearms. Eliminating public gun ownership does nothing to change that.

I know I'm just a bit late to the party here, but I wish to make a point about fertilizer+diesel fuel bombs, or rather, expand upon Lord Zentai's comment.

This is the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - or what was left of it - on August 21, 1995, two days after a fertilizer/fuel bomb detonated next to it. 169 dead, 680+ injured. Some rather striking parallels with the recent Norway mass murder spree. Except in this case absolutely no guns were used. In addition, another 300+ buildings within 16 blocks were damaged or destroyed as well as 86 vehicles nearby (as can be seen in the foreground). This bomb is believed to have cost less that $5,000 US to build, including the cost of renting the van to carry it to the target location.

Focusing solely on guns misses the fact that bombs kill quite effectively, too, and everything that went into the Oklahoma City bomb was perfectly legal. Of course, these days sale of ammonium nitrate is looked at a bit more closely, but as so recently demonstrated, it's not that difficult to obtain lethal amounts for bomb-making.

I don't know why Breivik chose guns over bombs, but even if you take away all the guns people can still mass murder others. Too many ordinary things can be turned to weapons with just a little knowledge and malice. It's important not to focus so closely on one thing that others are missed.

[Sea Skimmer]

Keep in mind Oklahoma City bomb was so powerful because Mcveigh used lots of Nitromethane (300 gallons IIRC), not diesel fuel or gasoline to make the bomb. Nitromethane contains a huge amount of oxogen as well as fuel, making it a high explosive in its own right and a fairly powerful one. As a result mixing with the Nitromethane created a mixture with far greater shattering effect then diesel fuel would have ever provided; normally ammonium nitrate based explosives creates a much greater lifting effect then shattering effect which is why they are used for blasting rather then military purposes. This is also why the bomb in Norway didn't even destroy all the windows in the buildings directly facing the blast.

Since Oklahoma City at least as far as the US goes the places which sell nitromethane fuel, which in private hands is only commonly used in large amounts by top fuel drag racers, are on the lookout for people trying to buy hundreds of gallons of the stuff who aren’t known as top fuel racers. Thankfully the list of top fuel racers is very small, far smaller then the list of farmers who could have legit reasons to buy ammonium nitrate by the ton. Breivik would have never been able to get large amounts of Nitromethane in Norway, I dunno that they have any top fuel races at all, but if they do the list of users is going to be tiny. Nitromethane also has many uses in industrial chemistry but that's not the kind of thing you can claim to be doing at home. Even if you were a chemist you simply wouldn't be able to justify having more then small samples, say a few pints. Now you go and buy an race a top fuel drag car as cover for being a terrorist, and that might work but then you are talking about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and a huge amount of time.

[Broomstick]

Breivik took 10 years to plan this? Something like that? Well, that would be 30 gallons of nitro a year for 10 years.... and if you had more than one person buying it, even just two or three....

If you're patient many things are possible.

Nitro is also used for some radio control model airplanes. I know people who go through a gallon or two of it a year, although I wouldn't say that's typical of the hobby.

But if not nitro then something else, or "just" an ANFO bomb, which is destructive enough to kill people. Even if nitro is hard to get NOW, it was so difficult then... which is part of my point. Everything McVeigh used in Oklahoma city could be legally obtained (I think they did steal a few bits, but they could have been purchased). So... make it harder to get nitro and ammonium nitrate, track those... what's the next thing to use?

How many fairly common substances could potentially be used for mass murder, if only mixed in the right amounts and combinations?

I don't know how you spot and render harmless these guys in advance, but I sure wish someone did.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think nitromethane actually goes bad in a timeframe of years, not sure on that though. Also thankfully very few people are insane enough to plan something like this for a decade. You pretty much do have to be physically insane to go to such trouble, I cannot think of any other examples at least. Most major terrorist attacks come after 18 months to 2 years of planning or else are fairly impulsive things planned in a time frame of weeks or no more then a few months.

McVeigh stole Det cord and electrical blasting caps to make the bomb; rather serious stuff to steal these days. IIRC at the same site he could have stolen C4, but specially did not do so because he knew that would bring the ATF and FBI swarming. Nobody thought so much about just detonator stuff being stolen at the time, since after all, look the thief didn't take the bulk explosives so how evil can be be? But since September 11th the storage requirements for such explosives materials have gone through the roof in the US. I dunno if Europe still operates on the idea that any good citizen should be able to buy dynamite to blow tree stumps out of his yard like the US once did decades ago, but I doubt it.

Certainly nothing can be done to stop terrorists from finding something they can use; but a lot can and has been done to scale back what they can do. You certainly don't see many really heavy vehicle bombs, even in Iraq in all those years of war and ammo dumps to loot I don't think anybody ever built a bomb as big as McVeigh did. Its not an easy thing to do, which is why to this day so many people think McVeigh had help we don't know about though I'm personally mostly skeptical on that.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also meant to add a lot of nitromethane sold for stuff like RC airplanes isn't pure, it has a lot of alcohol and lube oil already mixed in, so suitability for explosives making is reduced. A crazy enough person could probably separate that stuff back out but its one more piece of trouble.

[Broomstick]

You certainly don't see many really heavy vehicle bombs, even in Iraq in all those years of war and ammo dumps to loot I don't think anybody ever built a bomb as big as McVeigh did. Its not an easy thing to do, which is why to this day so many people think McVeigh had help we don't know about though I'm personally mostly skeptical on that.

I think that's one of the things people tell themselves to fell safer - oh, one average guy couldn't possibly figure it out on his own, or the group he did have (with Terry Nichols - McVeigh wasn't solo after all, but it did seem to be a very small group) couldn't figure it out, so it must be some larger group, we don't have to worry about isolated ones and twos, it's always something larger/easier to see/involves professionals/whatever.

I think it's delusional. Average people CAN figure these things out. Yes, it's hard, it requires money and effort, but if "average person" is determined enough it can be done. And, on a certain level, that's frightening because it means our collective safety depends on the average person behaving him/herself.

I hear mutterings Breivik must have had help. Oh really? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it seems plausible to me he could have planned and executed his spree all on his own. The only thing remarkable about him was that he was apparently patient enough to take 10 years to plan it all out. That is unusual. On the other hand, if he had put that same determination into, say, building a business or achieving excellence in some field of endeavor we'd admire him for it, such persistence isn't unknown.

[Simon_Jester]

It still makes me feel a lot more safe to reflect that building huge bombs is hard, even knowing it's not impossible.

If a lone person building a huge bomb is something that takes ten years of work and stockpiling and cover-story building to figure out, then it's not going to happen often. Most of them will get caught for trying to cut corners, or give up and quit being so angry at the world that they want to build a huge bomb, or screw up and wind up with a bomb that doesn't explode.

Once every five to ten years, someone in the world goes and does it, sure. But at that point the odds of my being killed by a lone nut's huge bomb are lower than my odds of being struck by lightning, and low enough that they don't really affect my assessment of the routine risks in my life. It fades into the background radiation.

Whereas if just anyone could build a huge bomb, relatively easily, without needing unusual amounts of brains and determination... it'd happen a lot more often. Then I might have to worry about it.