4 ms·

I guess they decided to arm the police after the Breivik attack?

• marvin 10y ago
  No, it actually happened four years later, presumably due to a concrete threat of islamic extremist terrorist attacks, the details of which were never disclosed to the public. To no one's surprise, the decision, which was touted as temporary in the political debate that ensued, is still in effect.
  • kristopolous 10y ago
    See the whole premise that someone can call up some government official and go "booga booga" and actually get a real change in policy while citizens fight for years to be heard really makes me think there's a bit more to the narrative ... It's almost like governments repressing their people is like a little kid looking for an excuse to eat candy.
    • digi_owl 10y ago
      Well it didn't help that the Progress Party, the right wing populists, was in government for the first time ever, and got their boy in the minister of justice chair.
  • digi_owl 10y ago
    > is still in effect. Best i can tell it ended in February. But since then it has been up to the individual districts to consider armed patrols based on events abroad.
  • vidarh 10y ago
    I thought it was changed again in February. At least that is what this says [1], unless it has been reintroduced. [1] https://www.politi.no/nyhet_15749.xml https://www.politi.no/nyhet_15749.xml
  • lb1lf 10y ago
    I think (mind, think) it was repealed a few weeks ago, and that Norwegian police is now unarmed unless there's a very specific threat they're responding to. When they were armed, it probably didn't help that they were issued Glocks - on which the safety catch... ...isn't. (The Glock is seemingly designed around the idea that it would be a bigger problem if you intended to fire and the gun didn't than the other way around; hence the abundance of accidental discharges.