Every time there’s a mass shooting, whether it takes place in the United States or in a foreign country like the one at Norway’s Utøya youth camp, it sparks a debate among Americans over guns and the Second Amendment. Gun-control advocates’ principal argument is a familiar one. Shooters access to and use of firearms are prima facie evidence of the need for stricter gun-control laws. The lesson we should learn from the Norway shootings, however, is not that more gun control would make us safer—Norway has very strict gun-control laws—but that strict gun-control laws are more likely to result in higher death tolls in mass shootings.

U.S. gun-control advocates tell us that in Norway, before the Utøya shootings, gun-related homicides averaged approximately 10 deaths per year. They attribute that small number to Norway’s gun-control laws. Gun ownership in Norway, however, is not uncommon. Norwegians have a large population of hunters and a tradition of sport shooting. “Semi-automatic and bolt action rifles, as well as shotguns, make up the better part of the guns in civilian homes.” Norwegians may own handguns, but large caliber pistols are prohibited.

Nevertheless, Norway’s gun-control law, The Firearm Weapons Act, requires the licensing of all guns; and to own a gun citizens must document a use for it. The transportation and storage of guns also is regulated by the state. Concealment of a weapon on one’s person is not permitted. These restrictions, however, did not prevent Anders Breivik from obtaining the weapon and ammunition he used to shoot 68 people.

With a population of 4.69 million, Norway’s gun-homicide rate was .21 per 100,000. Gun-related homicides in the United States average approximately 12,000 a year. With a population is 311 million, the U.S. gun-homicide rate of 3.85 per 100,000, 18 times higher than Norway’s.

U.S. gun-rights advocates, however, focus on how gun ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces crime and how deaths in mass shooting incidents are reduced when someone with the courage to take on the shooter has a firearm.

According to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Americans are far less likely to be killed with a firearm today than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit. Gun related homicides today are 28 percent lower than they were in the 1980s. While it is difficult to demonstrate a direct cause and effect relationship between concealed-carry laws and gun-homicide statistics, the correlation is clear. On November 1 when Wisconsin’s law goes into effect, 49 states will have concealed-carry laws, leaving Illinois as the only hold out.

Studies also show that the number of victims in mass shootings drops dramatically after either a law enforcement officer or a citizen with a gun arrives on the scene and starts shooting at the shooter.

Major Nidal Hasan shot 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas, before police Sergeant Kimberly Munley arrived on the scene, shot him, and prevented him from killing more people.

Matthew Murray, carrying two handguns, a rifle and 1,000 rounds of ammunition killed two teenaged girls in a church parking lot in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and then entered the church where he began shooting. "The potential for disaster was incredible. There were 7,000 people on the church grounds at the time." Jeanne Assam, a former Minneapolis police officer and volunteer church security guard with a license to carry a gun stepped forward, identified herself and then "engaged him and took him down."

Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 13, including Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), in Tucson, Arizona, before bystanders subdued him. He wasn’t taken down with a firearm, but one of the men that tackled him was armed, and he could have shot Loughner had it been necessary.

No armed police, security guards, or armed civilians were present on Utøya island when Anders Breivik began his rampage; and it took the police 90 minutes to arrive at the youth camp because neither a boat nor a helicopter was readily available.

How many fewer Norwegians would have been killed by Breivik had there been an armed Norwegian police officer, security guard, or Norwegian citizen present when he began his killing spree? It’s impossible to answer that question, but it’s one that everyone should ask.

Comparing the relationship between gun-control laws and gun-related homicide rates in Norway and the United States is comparing apples and oranges. There are many cultural and social reasons other than gun--control laws that likely account for the difference gun-related-homicide rates between Norway and the United States.

Comparing what happens in mass shootings once the carnage begins in the two countries with very different gun-control laws is another matter. Unchallenged, as Breivik was, by someone with the capability to kill or wound a shooter, the shooter will proceed to kill as many people as his ammunition supply will allow.

The knee-jerk reaction following such massacres is to call for greater restrictions on the access to and possession of firearms. And some of them, such as closing the gun-show loophole with instant background checks and finding ways to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill, make sense.

Rather than concentrating on laws to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, however, Americans should consider how concealed-carry laws, firearms safety and marksmanship training might further reduce gun-related homicides in the United States.

Given that mass shooters will tend to avoid areas where armed police and security guards are present and the increasing likelihood that terrorists will use firearms as they did in the 2008 Mumbai, India, attack and at Fort Hood, Texas, concealed-carry laws only make good sense. We should focus on ensuring that law-abiding citizens who chose to own and carry a firearm store and handle them safely; and, should the occasion arise, they know how to use them effectively.