Finland is Winland

[Lare Kikkeli]

Wasn't there a mass stabbing in Japan by a school kid recently? Japan has one of the tightest gun laws in the world btw. I'm all for making gun permits harder to get (and maybe banning hand guns altogether, they're not needed in Finland in any way), but that just isn't the solution here. Young people are getting more and more disillusioned with the world and hard values like taks's that emphasize the idea that I am better than anyone else and always right will only make these kind of things happen more. I'm no wiser than Xard or Morgoth or anyone, I can't single out a reason for these two tragic incidents.

[Walsingham]

There was a mass stabbing, preceded by a car crashing rampage. Similarly, 9 Israeli soldiers were injured when a man ran them over. IMO however unlikely you think helping people mentally is, trying to ban 'weapons' is a waste of time. Anything is a weapon *picks up and hefts Hades menacingly* if you know how to apply it.

[Gorgon]

Thats a non argument, and a poor one at that. The body count is high because he used a gun, shooters and bombers are different psychological profiles. Long story short, of course it matters what weapons are used in a mass killing.

 

Give me a lunatic with a knife any day over one with a gun.

[random n00b]

You'd be dead just the same.

[Rosbjerg]

Still, I can run from a guy with a knife - I can't very well run from a guy with a gun.

 

Plus when the police show up with guns, it easier for them to take down someone with a knife.

[random n00b]

On the other hand, you can't run from a guy with a car, or a guy with a homemade bomb. Dead is dead.

 

And the police are always late, so that's not much relief, is it?

[Musopticon?]

We lit a candle the day before yesterday.

 

Friends of my friends died in the shooting. Never met them and honestly my reaction is still a temperate "wtf" and not sorrow, but I understand the gravity of the matter anyway.

 

Food for thought: The "passing age" between government-supported mental healthcare that ends when you are eighteen and self-funded healthcare that comes available once(well, if) you start to get paid enough is something the government has completely forgotten. There's basically no coverage for people aged 19-23, unless you happen to attend a school which has a supported health plan. Not everyone can, and especially the ones that don't really fit anywhere and never finish studies even on the basic school level - apparently there's around two hundred kids like this every year - are ostracized and often can't even get jobs. It's these people we should be looking after instead of stricter gun laws.

 

Of course, this doesn't apply to the Kauhajoki gunman, since he was well on his way in vocational school, but the problem exists nevertheless. Social isolation exists and is something for the government to tackle on it's term. The fact that they cut mental healthcare funds in their last budget doesn't help either.

[Walsingham]

That's an interesting point, Muso, and of course a lot of people with mental issues are those low earning guys age 18-23.

 

In fact, self-financed mental healthcare is almost a contradiction in terms. The more issues you have the less likely you are to be able to afford it.

[Musopticon?]

You, my friend, have come upon the point.

[Gfted1]

Social isolation exists and is something for the government to tackle on it's term.

 

 

Whaaat? How do you propose that? A government sponsored buddy program? The world will always have square pegs trying to fit into round holes, humans are just too diverse. I dont think it would be possible to mandate friendship.

[Musopticon?]

Not to tackle entirely, that's insane, but see to it that the odd 200 people have a chance by trying to, for instance, reintroduce them to the society via whatever mean available. E.g see that there's an incentive to learn a profession or study by providing job opportunities.

 

Sorry for the horrible generalization. I've been studying goddamn Eagleton this afternoon and it burns man, burns. Brainfarts aplenty.

[Meshugger]

We lit a candle the day before yesterday.

 

Friends of my friends died in the shooting. Never met them and honestly my reaction is still a temperate "wtf" and not sorrow, but I understand the gravity of the matter anyway.

 

Food for thought: The "passing age" between government-supported mental healthcare that ends when you are eighteen and self-funded healthcare that comes available once(well, if) you start to get paid enough is something the government has completely forgotten. There's basically no coverage for people aged 19-23, unless you happen to attend a school which has a supported health plan. Not everyone can, and especially the ones that don't really fit anywhere and never finish studies even on the basic school level - apparently there's around two hundred kids like this every year - are ostracized and often can't even get jobs. It's these people we should be looking after instead of stricter gun laws.

 

Of course, this doesn't apply to the Kauhajoki gunman, since he was well on his way in vocational school, but the problem exists nevertheless. Social isolation exists and is something for the government to tackle on it's term. The fact that they cut mental healthcare funds in their last budget doesn't help either.

 

Damn, i missed that entirely. Since i am attending a university, where we have our own healthcare, i have completely missed this.

 

Sorry for your friends loss

[Walsingham]

Social isolation exists and is something for the government to tackle on it's term.

 

 

Whaaat? How do you propose that? A government sponsored buddy program? The world will always have square pegs trying to fit into round holes, humans are just too diverse. I dont think it would be possible to mandate friendship.

 

Most importantly, who gets to be friends with Onur the Courageous?

[Xard]

lern2read

Oh, I can read just fine. I read the part where you said you couldn't know the specific reason, and I also read the part where you laid down a rather simplistic and tendentious possible explanation of the circumstances that made him go bat****. That is called contradicting oneself.

 

lern2write

 

 

I didn't put blame on "capitalism" for this shooting; I put blame on capitalism on the overall situation which contributed to this.

 

 

 

 

I wonder if it's a coincidence that Finland has Europe's most lax gun laws?

 

nah, it's just that our country is fail nowadays

[Rostere]

What is the point with owning a gun anyway? A gun is a weapon, not a tool. I could see how people could make civil use of a hunting rifle, but I think ownership of small guns should be completely prohibited.

[Xard]

What is the point with owning a gun anyway? A gun is a weapon, not a tool. I could see how people could make civil use of a hunting rifle, but I think ownership of small guns should be completely prohibited.

 

Pretty much *all* finnish weapons are hunting rifles and like.

[Walsingham]

What is the point with owning a gun anyway? A gun is a weapon, not a tool. I could see how people could make civil use of a hunting rifle, but I think ownership of small guns should be completely prohibited.

 

Erm, a gun is also a tool. For example, how else is one to remove the tops of beer bottles?

[Meshugger]

What is the point with owning a gun anyway? A gun is a weapon, not a tool. I could see how people could make civil use of a hunting rifle, but I think ownership of small guns should be completely prohibited.

 

Personal collection maybe? (even if this sector is really small). As Xard said, a vast majority of all weapons in Finland are used for hunting. Trying to ban guns will never lead you anywhere. It's like aspirin against braincancer.

[Rostere]

What is the point with owning a gun anyway? A gun is a weapon, not a tool. I could see how people could make civil use of a hunting rifle, but I think ownership of small guns should be completely prohibited.

 

Personal collection maybe? (even if this sector is really small). As Xard said, a vast majority of all weapons in Finland are used for hunting. Trying to ban guns will never lead you anywhere. It's like aspirin against braincancer.

 

I don't know. The uses of a small gun are very few and very vague... Plus, we don't have any school shootings in Sweden, where we have stricter laws for small guns. Oh, and I do believe that banning guns will reduce the number of dangerous weapons in circulation, altough this is definitely not the only measure to take to prevent accidents of theis kind. More funding for mental healthcare is for example a more important step. But banning small arms would be so easy, if you think of what you would gain.

[random n00b]

The thing is, History shows that banning stuff just doesn't work. People like their booze, drugs and guns, and ultimately don't give a flyin' **** if those things are banned. Crime is the only thing that's strengthened from prohibiting things that are popular with people.

 

Revising the policies which govern gun licenses, monitoring those who own them, those are things that are both realistic and likely to produce results.

 

And, also, more money for mental healthcare can only do so much - how can people with mental or personality disorders be consistently detected? And even if they could be, how are the laws regarding forcing people to be treated against their own will?

[Humodour]

Erm, a gun is also a tool. For example, how else is one to remove the tops of beer bottles?

 

I use my face, generally.

[Meshugger]

The thing is, History shows that banning stuff just doesn't work. People like their booze, drugs and guns, and ultimately don't give a flyin' **** if those things are banned. Crime is the only thing that's strengthened from prohibiting things that are popular with people.

 

Revising the policies which govern gun licenses, monitoring those who own them, those are things that are both realistic and likely to produce results.

 

And, also, more money for mental healthcare can only do so much - how can people with mental or personality disorders be consistently detected? And even if they could be, how are the laws regarding forcing people to be treated against their own will?

 

Good points and good questions, i wish that there would be someone with a good answer.

[Walsingham]

Erm, a gun is also a tool. For example, how else is one to remove the tops of beer bottles?

 

I use my face, generally.

 

Yes. 'Beer bottles'.

[Rostere]

The thing is, History shows that banning stuff just doesn't work. People like their booze, drugs and guns, and ultimately don't give a flyin' **** if those things are banned. Crime is the only thing that's strengthened from prohibiting things that are popular with people.

 

Revising the policies which govern gun licenses, monitoring those who own them, those are things that are both realistic and likely to produce results.

 

I'm not so sure. I've never met a person in my entire life who's interested in non- hunting guns, that is to say they would be interested in acquiring one for whatever purpose. Prohibiting the ownership of such weapons wouldn't make anyone angry, except maybe a couple of maniacs who are only going to kill someone later on anyway. Oh, and I guess that whether these "gun lovers" care or not if their weapons are banned depends on what kind of punishment owning one entails.

[Walsingham]

No offence Rostere, but you may have a rather limited social circle. To misquote the late great Bill Hicks, what does it matter why someon has a gun if they don't hurt anyone with it? Hunter S Thompson had all kinds of crazy guns.

 

I know I'm shifting stance here, but seriously. Finland has tonnes of guns, but apparently only 14% of homicides involve a firearm. Suggests to me that there may be some other factors at work as well as firearms.