I don't follow mg's reasoning. Let's say that downtown Seattle suffered a bomb attack.

Setting the scenario:

It is high summer. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of campers out there. Everyone from Girl Scout camps to family outings to Outward Bound exercises and many more. They can be 10 miles from Seattle or they can be 100 miles away. Heck, they could even be 3,000 miles away and still be in the same country. Where does one draw the line?

I agree that disaster plans should be in place; there are flash floods out there, lightning storms, bear attacks, broken legs and backs, flat tires, cases of homesickness... But only in this country do we feel that we need to include the hazards of a potential attack by a human being. And even we don't prepare for the same human being presenting himself as a figure of authority.

Norway, given its history of non-aggression, has about as much reason to expect such an event as a group of Amish on an outing having to worry about one of its people running amok.

The best - meaning safest - of all worlds is one in which we would have precious little freedom.