Reply #169: now try reading the post I was initially replying to

[iverglas]

which is of course the post I was ... well, replying to, eh?

What if there were a few armed citizens on the island?

WHY WOULD ANYONE ON THAT ISLAND HAVE BEEN "ARMED"?

They were not on an "adventure/survival" outing.

They were at a summer gathering of members of the youth wing of a political party, at an established facility, on an island, not in the remote wilderness, where they attended meetings and engaged in R&R activities.

So on the topic at hand ... as I said in the post ...

Why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp?

to which Cid_B replied:

Most of my senior counselors and the majority of the parents were armed at my camps... but they weren't "normal" right?

... why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp?

Your camping experiences seem to have, excuse me, sweet bugger all to do with the event in question.

Yes, I did also say:

Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed".

and plainly if I had been referring to "summer camps" in which children are exposed to predatory wildlife, I would expect parents to want staff to have means of protecting children from that wildlife. That was not the context.

Children's summer camps that involve such situations, in the US or anywhere else, are in a distinct minority.

I was posting about the particular youth camp in issue, the camp that the post I replied to was about.

Why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp ... in Norway, on an island, with no predatory wildlife?

Plainly, the poster in question was NOT referring to individuals "armed" against wildlife.