In light of recent events transpiring in Norway (lone bomber/gunman trying to blow up the Prime Minister & killing 7, then attacking a camp for young political activists and slaughtering about 80 kids & young adults; a camp the Prime Minister was supposed to be speaking at), I’ve already started seeing comments on news sites about how “if someone had been armed/allowed to carry at the camp, this could have been stopped!”. Such comments are A) not helpful, B) make you sound like a right wing SA nutjob, and C) demonstrate a remarkably piss-poor understanding of the Norwegian culture (something I tell a lot of lefties who point to Norway when talking about social welfare and say, “See, it can be done, Norway does it!”).
Norway is a country where the homicide rate is consistently 1/100K or less. Violent crime is also abnormally low, and is usually domestic (or criminal on criminal) in nature. The likelihood of a law abiding person being a victim of violence, where you do not know your attacker, is so small as to be almost non-existent. Hell, the police don’t even carry guns, and it’s not a problem. Even if the population was allowed to carry, I doubt they would. Even in the US, where most states permit it, only a tiny fraction of the population carries on a regular basis.
Norway is a place where the people don’t fear their government, they don’t fear the police, they don’t fear crime, and they don’t fear each other. The possibility of such a slaughter happening probably never even entered their minds.