And now Finland

[F_Man]

I don't think the sport/shooting clubs merit blame for this. Scrutiny is perhaps justified, but detecting a mentally unbalanced young man is asking that they have some kind of psychiatric assessment. How workable is that? Medical privacy issues also make it difficult to know who is sane enough to be a responsible gun operator or owner. Crime records are usually the only public records that are available, as far as I know.

Should people have to prove they are sane to merit getting a firearms license?[/QUOTE]

Detecting instability would be a key issue regarding a membership. For a membership in the Finnish hunting clubs and wider based noncommercial "shooting clubs", a formal recommendation by a reliable source known to the club is needed, which will be followed by an interview of the applicant. Only after that can a membership be granted, and after that, a gun can be bought.

This killer craved for publicity; internet is the great provider.

The fact that the gun per inhabitant ratio is so high in Finland has truly hit the nation with this incident. Thinking about that, one should remember, that you only have to go 50-60 years back when the society was quite rural, livelyhood based on farming, raising cows and pigs which you slaughtered yourself, and whaterver the forest provided. Every farm had to have a gun or two, and wars with Russia in the 1930's and 40's had their guerilla aspect as well. The civilized, democratic, educated, high-tech Finland of Nokia success is the product of the last 40 years. Out of the population of 5 million Finns, the oldest 20% are from the times when the thought was that it'd be dangerous if a family didn't have a gun.

Comparisons to the USA will be evident, and I'm pretty sure laws here will be changed.

-FM

 

[odd_fish_9]

Don't you think that statistics alone show that liberal gun rules result in more deaths ?
Having a large number of weapons hasn't exactly kept crime levels down.

Numerous real cases have shown otherwise. The Orlando, FL and Kennesaw, GA experiments have demonstrated fairly conclusively that firearms in the hands of the general public - not firearms use, but mere presence - can reduce the rates of at least some violent crimes by factors of 90% or more.

We have a great deal of information from polls of gun use. The most exhaustive was probably that by Dr Kleck in 1993. (See here.) There are others, and the exact numbers are, not surprisingly, in dispute. But from these studies an interesting number can be extracted. Here in the United States, a woman uses a firearm to stop or discourage a rape or sexual assault over 560 times a day. (Note that this does not mean that there are 560 would-be rapists lying around with bullet holes in them by the end of the day - most crimes are stopped without shots being fired.)

There are no statistics which positively correlate weapons with crime. There are plenty of assumptions about that, but no real numbers. Here are some real numbers. The rate of firearms homicides (that is, gun murders per 100,000 polulation) in the US exceeds the rate for all homicides in Canada. (Aha! It must be all those guns in America!) But down at the other border, the rate of knife homicides in Mexico exceeds the US homicide rate for all weapons (including, of course, guns). (Oops, maybe the guns have nothing to do with it. Bummer.)

 

[Drifterwood]

Should people have to prove they are sane to merit getting a firearms license?

I think that that would be pretty reasonable. We don't let the insane vote, but obviously letting them have guns would be less dangerous

 

[2322]

Finnman: The second quote you attributed to me in this post, #36, is half mine and half jumbo747jet's. Please quote me correctly. :smile:

 

[chico8]

The fact that the gun per inhabitant ratio is so high in Finland has truly hit the nation with this incident. Thinking about that, one should remember, that you only have to go 50-60 years back when the society was quite rural, livelyhood based on farming, raising cows and pigs which you slaughtered yourself, and whaterver the forest provided. Every farm had to have a gun or two, and wars with Russia in the 1930's and 40's had their guerilla aspect as well. The civilized, democratic, educated, high-tech Finland of Nokia success is the product of the last 40 years. Out of the population of 5 million Finns, the oldest 20% are from the times when the thought was that it'd be dangerous if a family didn't have a gun.

Comparisons to the USA will be evident, and I'm pretty sure laws here will be changed.

-FM

The Nokia phenomenon is also part of the problem. Just like the UK, Finland is experiencing large wage disparities. Teachers and nurses are paid very poorly while the rich continue to get richer.

I think there's a social context being overlooked here. Most gun murders in the US are committed by and aimed at the socio-economically disadvantaged. jason els' fantasies about the need to own guns are largely based on the fear of those with a different skin color or cultural background.

 

[F_Man]

Finnman: The second quote you attributed to me in this post, #36, is half mine and half jumbo747jet's. Please quote me correctly. :smile:

I pressed the button "quote" and that's how it came automatically picked up; didn't check it. No misquote intended. FM

 

[2322]

We don't use Shakespeare for our constitution.

And I wouldn't want to be a Jefferson, unlike McVeigh of course who was wearing a "Tree of Liberty..." T shirt when he murdered for freedom.

I agree with Dong, Jefferson's idealization of the yeoman farmer is now an anachronism, yet it still seems to have such a strong pull on the US psyche, well with Republicans anyway.

Sadly there aren't so many countries left to steal anymore :biggrin1:, but I'll let you know if I find one.

Saying McVeigh was anything like Jefferson is highly insulting. McVeigh was sincerely twisted and violated every principle Jefferson stood for. Perhaps you need a remedial course in American history?

The yeoman farmer as you put it is anachronistic but the ideal behind it, of a populous always on guard against infringement of its liberties, is not. Here the ACLU files hundreds of cases a year against every governmental entity from municipalities on up to the federal government for the express purpose of protecting our rights from governmental infringement. It is public activism that ended war, gave 18 year olds the vote, brought about civil liberties for minorities of color, and women the vote. We use our rights every day and every day somewhere one form of government or another seeks to defray those rights. Vigilance is eternal and necessary for all people, urban or rural, left or right. Our system is adversarial and yet has served us very well for a long time. Your constitution is unwritten, ours is explicitly described in document and contains more than a few rights various governments of the day would prefer Americans not to have. Our sovereignty is not in a monarch but in the people themselves. The government serves us and if care to own guns then the government must accept it or perish.

I do not presume to tell the good people of the UK how to run their government. I hope you would extend to us the same courtesy.

OK, I think I understand the way you are thinking.
If the reason why people call the police is that they carry firearms, there would be no need for police if everybody walked around with guns.
I must say that it doesn't sound very appealing to live in a society where everybody is armed.

What I want to know is why anybody feels he or she needs to be armed. What is he or she so scared of ?
Surely the entire country can't be infested with vermin.

Don't you think that statistics alone show that liberal gun rules result in more deaths ?
Having a large number of weapons hasn't exactly kept crime levels down.

As odd_fish_9 pointed out, higher levels of gun ownership not only prevents crime but results in potential victims from becoming victims in the first place. Like the Volvo ad says, isn't it better to avoid being the victim of crime altogether than have to survive one?

Still waiting for your answers jumbo747jet. Can you answer the questions I posed or do you believe so blindly in gun control that you cannot articulate your position?

I'm beginning to find a great deal of irony in so many non-Americans telling Americans how they should run their lives when it is they who frequently complain of Americans doing the same thing to them.

Oh and I'm not a Republican and never have been.

 

[jumbo747jet]

Still waiting for your answers jumbo747jet. Can you answer the questions I posed or do you believe so blindly in gun control that you cannot articulate your position?

I'm beginning to find a great deal of irony in so many non-Americans telling Americans how they should run their lives when it is they who frequently complain of Americans doing the same thing to them.

Oh and I'm not a Republican and never have been.

I don't know which question you want me to respond to, so please ask again.

Non-Americans telling Americans how they should live ? I thought we were talking about Finland, weren't we ?

 

[BIGBULL29]

Yeah. We're lame.

The baby boomers are/were no different from other generations except that their numbers overburdened the systems that were in place. I think they were predictably as criminal or violent at certain ages in their development as any other generation. Their prolific population made the difference in crime rates.

I think the point is that the tendency to engage in impulsive illegal acts is observed to be age related, and that most people at risk to offend grow out of it as they mature, get jobs, marry, take on responsibilities, or get incarcerated (and thus age beyond the wonder years). Testosterone and immature brain development together with a short fuse (and often alcohol) make for volatility. That is constant.

Likewise, we see the auto insurance industry addressing the age of younger male drivers with costly or prohibitively expensive premiums that are related to risk associated with their cohort. Presumably they have studies and statistics that the underwriters use to assess risk.

Rogue behaviour like the teen in Finland is what I think of as exceptional to broader demographic behaviours. It's mental illnesses and opportunity.


The Brampton shooting was huge news here in Canada and was, as far as I know, unprecedented. The massacre of female engineering students at [SIZE=-1]École Polytechnique[/SIZE] in Montreal in 1989 was another act of madness that probably has more infamy.

On a lighter note, English is not your native language? Just an observation :wink: (no insult to be taken:biggrin1. I wasn't understanding some of your post. It' all cool, though, bro.

 

[Gillette]

I remember reading about the Tsuyama massacre where the killer used a sword in a mass killing. I tried finding more information about it, and the Wikipedia page is pretty sketchy. It mentions that the killer used both a sword and an old rifle, but it does give a breakdown of how many of the 29 people killed were killed with what weapon. I haven't been able to find an English language web page that gives more information.

Tsuyama massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I'm not sure that one counts.

How about the Rwandan genocide? Every account I've read about that indicates that large numbers of people were hacked to death with machetes. The Wikipedia article mentioning some army units using rifles is the first time I've seen anything indicating weapons other than machetes were used.

There are many people who freeze up and/or panic when faced with violence. They don't see it, it's unusual, and dangerous. I think mass killings with knives would be easier than you think.

The wiki page says that the Tsuyama massacre began at 1:30AM. I'm going to say that using a knife when people are sleeping would be easier than a gun as there isn't the sound of a shot to wake others.

In the case of the Rwanda genocide it wasn't carried out by a lone macheteman. I would hazard a guess that it was carried out by guerrilla troops who would have herded people together at gun point then used the knives to save on ammunition.

It's pretty difficult to justify saying that a knife would be as effective for carrying out a daytime massacre in a public place as a gun. A gun has a range no knife, even a throwing knife, can match.

 

[B_Monster]

I think "most" people share some of the blame in these school and workplace shootings, we allow guns, especially in the US to be obtained by crimanal and do nothing to try and regulate them, myself included.

THANKS NRA!

 

[rawbone8]

On a lighter note, English is not your native language? Just an observation :wink: (no insult to be taken:biggrin1. I wasn't understanding some of your post. It' all cool, though, bro.

No excuses... I'm just a crappy writer. I need an editor. Rubi, are you busy?:biggrin1:

 

[2322]

I don't know which question you want me to respond to, so please ask again.

Should the millions of other Finns who responsibly own handguns be deprived of their right to handgun ownership because of a mentally ill student who abused that right?

Do you think he wouldn't have just chosen a rifle or shotgun instead?

How does removing the gun remove the desire to commit such an act?

Non-Americans telling Americans how they should live ? I thought we were talking about Finland, weren't we?

We were until comments were made comparing Finland's gun ownership to the United States and you made the comment:

Only in America would anybody feel "deprived" for not being able to own weapons for no reason.
Statistics show that in Finland more than 30% own weapons while the average in the rest of Europe is around 3 %.

 

[Gillette]

Originally Posted by jason_els

Should the millions of other Finns who responsibly own handguns be deprived of their right to handgun ownership because of a mentally ill student who abused that right?

Do you think he wouldn't have just chosen a rifle or shotgun instead?

How does removing the gun remove the desire to commit such an act?

jumbo747jet][/b]

Non-Americans telling Americans how they should live ? I thought we were talking about Finland, weren't we?

We were until comments were made comparing Finland's gun ownership to the United States and you made the comment:

jumbo747jet][/b]
Only in America would anybody feel "deprived" for not being able to own weapons for no reason.
Statistics show that in Finland more than 30% own weapons while the average in the rest of Europe is around 3 %.

If I may, I'm going to step in here to answer the questions you posed.

1. No, responsible gun owners shouldn't have to give up their guns. The key word here is responsible. Not every handgun owner is.

1. A rifle or a shotgun, even a sawed off version would be much more difficult to conceal so people would have been alerted to his intentions much sooner. I may be wrong here but I believe rifles and shotguns require more frequent reloading which would allow more time for potential victims to escape.

3. It doesn't, but it certainly helps to minimize the damage such a person is capable of doing as a spontaneous act.

Before anyone suggests a bomb as causing as much damage, while true, it requires more knowledge to make a bomb than it does to buy a ready made gun. It requires more time to create, plant and detonate a bomb than it does to squeeze a trigger. Plus, during the time to cook and plant a bomb there is more chance of being discovered and thwarted than there is in drawing a concealed gun and firing. There is also considerably more risk in blowing oneself up in the process of the above than there is with a gun.

Handguns are the single most effective and concealable weapon for a rage inspired mass killing. They have no business being in the hands of people who are not stable.

Gun control is not the same thing as gun abolishment. Control is precisely that, control.

-Age limits, background checks, psych evaluation even, training and testing definitely. Control.

-Armour piercing rounds, hollow point bullets; why the fuck are these available to the general public? Vermin? I don't think so. Control.

-Militia potential? If you are invaded or your govenment takes a step too far not even an uzi will save you. What's next? SAMs mounted next to the satelite dish? Your own tank up on blocks in the yard? Control.

*Not speaking for Jumbo but from reading it looks to me that he is making an observation on what seems to be a prevalent American attitude rather than telling anyone how they should live.

 

[Drifterwood]

Saying McVeigh was anything like Jefferson is highly insulting.

Read a little closer Jason. I didn't say he was like Jefferson.

Jefferson wrote that "the amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent."

 

[2322]

You said McVeigh thought he was, "a Jefferson." Clearly someone who wants to be someone but can't would rather like to be like that person. McVeigh twisted Jefferson the same way Hitler twisted Wagner and the swastika. Misuse of an ideal does not obviate the value of the ideal.

Yeah Jefferson had his faults but then who doesn't? Newton liked to stick spoons into his eye and Brahms used a bow and arrow to shoot cats.

Read a little closer Jason. I didn't say he was like Jefferson.

Jefferson wrote that "the amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent."

 

[Drifterwood]

I actually said, and you quoted me, I wouldn't want to be a Jefferson, in response to your saying that I was no Jefferson.

I would love to discuss Mr. Jefferson, warts and all, and his continued influence on many diverse facets of American culture, but that would be to hijack the thread.

His views no doubt, do have an effect on gun culture in the States which was the specific relevance to this topic.

 

[braumeister]

The wiki page says that the Tsuyama massacre began at 1:30AM. I'm going to say that using a knife when people are sleeping would be easier than a gun as there isn't the sound of a shot to wake others.

In the case of the Rwanda genocide it wasn't carried out by a lone macheteman. I would hazard a guess that it was carried out by guerrilla troops who would have herded people together at gun point then used the knives to save on ammunition.

It's pretty difficult to justify saying that a knife would be as effective for carrying out a daytime massacre in a public place as a gun. A gun has a range no knife, even a throwing knife, can match.

I've seen lots of people awake at 1:30 AM. While it is possible the folks killed were asleep at the time, there's nothing in the Wiki article that indicates that, nor is there anything in any of the English language to indicate that. I'm skeptical, though open to someone correcting me with further evidence.

As for Rwanda, I doubt the machete killings were carried out that way. Why bother rounding them up with guns and not kill them with the guns?

How would you react to a violent thug with a knife slashing people at random? Most people I know would panic and run, hoping that they could outrun him. Not fight him. Could you outrun him?

 

[frizzle]

I guess he couldn't finnish what he started!

 

[jumbo747jet]

Originally Posted by jason_els

Should the millions of other Finns who responsibly own handguns be deprived of their right to handgun ownership because of a mentally ill student who abused that right?

Yes, owning handguns isn't a human right. Only if somebody has a actual need for a weapon should he or she be granted a license to own appropriate weapons after a thourough evaluation of character and all weapons should always be stored in two parts, in a locked safe.


Do you think he wouldn't have just chosen a rifle or shotgun instead?

No I don't, as by weapons I mean all kinds, including rifles.

How does removing the gun remove the desire to commit such an act?


It doesn't, but it makes going ahead with it a lot more difficult.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jumbo747jet

Non-Americans telling Americans how they should live ? I thought we were talking about Finland, weren't we?

We were until comments were made comparing Finland's gun ownership to the United States and you made the comment:


Quote:
Originally Posted by jumbo747jet
Only in America would anybody feel "deprived" for not being able to own weapons for no reason.
Statistics show that in Finland more than 30% own weapons while the average in the rest of Europe is around 3 %.

My comment "Only in America would anybody feel ..." was targeted at you directly, seeing as you are living in "America".