Finland is Winland

[Rostere]

No offence Rostere, but you may have a rather limited social circle.

 

lol, I'll give you that. But come on, do you other people at the forum know a lot of crazy gun- toting rednecks?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Rostere

[mkreku]

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.

"Thompson died at his self-described "fortified compound" known as "Owl Farm" in Woody Creek, Colorado, at 5:42 p.m. on February 20, 2005, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head."

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson#Death

 

Great example there, Walsh

 

Ps. It's safe to click on the link. Not a bit of skin to be seen anywhere. Not even a piece of paper folded perversely!

[Volourn]

This goes back a few pages; but I'll go back to my comment(s) on governments and guns.

 

I'll make a deal. The day the law makes it illegal for the government to have access to guns (this includes both the police, and the army) is the day I will back making gun ownage illegal for innocent, upstanding civilians too.

 

But, governments don't do that because they fair losing power. It's a LOT HARDER to intimidate, and bully innocent civilians if they ahve access to guns. That's why governments and pro government punks love gun bans for innocent people.

 

It has nothing to do with battlingc rime as innocent civilians don't commit violent crimes. Only violent criminals who don't obey such laws or any laws anyways.

 

By outright banning guns, you aren't hurting the criminal just the innocent civilian.

[Nick_i_am]

And people who go on gun rampages because they're pissed off and have easy access to guns.

[Walsingham]

Fair point. But he never hurt anyone ELSE. Moreover, without the guns do you think he'd still be alive?

 

I'll make a deal. The day the law makes it illegal for the government to have access to guns (this includes both the police, and the army) is the day I will back making gun ownage illegal for innocent, upstanding civilians too.

 

It has nothing to do with battlingc rime as innocent civilians don't commit violent crimes. Only violent criminals who don't obey such laws or any laws anyways.

 

So you're saying you'd be fine with removing guns from law-abiding people provided those people had no police or army to protect them?

[Volourn]

"And people who go on gun rampages because they're pissed off and have easy access to guns."

 

Those aren't innocent civilians, are they?

 

 

 

 

"So you're saying you'd be fine with removing guns from law-abiding people provided those people had no police or army to protect them?"

 

Police do a good job protecting people from murder now, right? Police are mostly useful in hunting the Bad Guys tm down AFTER the crime has been commited.

 

The army doesn't protect people. They protect countries. HUGE difference.

 

 

Also, if there were no guns, police and armies wouldn't need guns to do their jobs.

 

But,t his is point. Guns exist. We don't live in Happy Happy Land. Innocent civilians should have guns. So should law enforcement. So should the army. Only scumbag criminals should be banned from owning weapons. Making it illegal for innocent civilians to have guns doesn't protect innocent civilians from gun toting scumbag criminals, or police or soldiers who abuse their badge/uniform.

 

I'll make another deal with you. If you can 100% guarantee that the army and police forces will only have nice, upstanding goodie two shoes who will *never8 abuse their power than I'd be all for the army/police having guns even if guns were banned for everybody else.

 

But, oh yeah, you can't do that.

 

Afterall, the saying Power Currupts exists for a reason.

[Nick_i_am]

"And people who go on gun rampages because they're pissed off and have easy access to guns."

 

Those aren't innocent civilians, are they?

 

Do spree shooters generally have any kind of criminal record prior to the shooting?

[Volourn]

Irrelevant. People who go on rampages - gun or otherwise - are not innocent civilians.

[Nick_i_am]

They're not hardened criminals who have access to gun smuggling rings either.

[Lare Kikkeli]

The killer in this case was NOT a hardened criminal.

[Volourn]

Nor was he an innocent civilian. *shrug*

[Walsingham]

However, as in many other cases, he had already been noticed by the police. There was just no system for doing anything about it.

[Gorgon]

I dunno, these 'systems' can be pretty damn invasive once they are in place. I dislike the notion of being surveiled by well meaning social services a lot more than having handguns banned and hunting rifles hard to get.

 

You definitely need someone to turn to if you are a police or a teacher and have a genuine worry about what some kid is going to do though.

[Walsingham]

This recent chap didn't need some super-nany state to spot him. he was spotted by current systems. Nothing happened to him, though. No hlep, no "I think maybe you should put down that gun until you quit saying you're going to kill everyone".

[Xard]

Nor was he an innocent civilian. *shrug*

 

prior to this he was

[Walsingham]

...And I suppose a ticking bomb shouldn't be defused because it hasn't blown up?

[Xard]

uhh, not my point...

 

The killer in this case was NOT a hardened criminal.

 

 

Nor was he an innocent civilian. *shrug*

 

I was simply contributing to Volo vs Nick debate.

[Nick_i_am]

I'm neutral on gun lesislation but the volo logic reads like this.

 

Upstanding citizens should have access to guns.

 

Criminals shouldn't, but will get them via criminal means.

 

Spree killers arn't upstanding citizens, but arn't criminals either, so where are their guns coming from.

 

Answer is, the same place as the guns of upstanding citzens, either bought themselves or from friends/relatives.

 

Which means, logically, that if upstanding citizens didn't have access to guns, then neither would spree killers unless they resorted to criminal means.

 

There are lots of arguments against gun legislation, but this is not one of them.

 

Just saying.

[Volourn]

"prior to this he was"

 

Nope. read the history. The guy was 'in the red' so to speak before this incident.

 

 

 

"I'm neutral on gun lesislation but the volo logic reads like this.

 

Upstanding citizens should have access to guns.

 

Criminals shouldn't, but will get them via criminal means.

 

Spree killers arn't upstanding citizens, but arn't criminals either, so where are their guns coming from.

 

Answer is, the same place as the guns of upstanding citzens, either bought themselves or from friends/relatives.

 

Which means, logically, that if upstanding citizens didn't have access to guns, then neither would spree killers unless they resorted to criminal means.

 

There are lots of arguments against gun legislation, but this is not one of them."

 

My point is simple. Outlawing guns doens't stop criminals from havinga ccess to them as criminals by DEFINTION, don't care if soemthing is illegal. Duh. So, by essence, by outlawing guns, you are only taking guns away from those who would obey the law hence people who likely arne't a danger to going on mass murder sprees, anyways. So, what did you succeed in doing? Making it easier on the criminal to threaten/murder/rob innocent civilians.

 

Besdies, I will never be on the side on extreme gun illegalization as long as the government, and police feel the need to have guns UNLESS it can be GUARANTEED that all government officials (FBI, Mounties, police, army) are 100% 'good guys' and would never use their guns (which you and other seem to wnat them to be the ONLY people with gun access) to bully, threaten, rob, murder, and blackmail innocent civilians.

 

P.S. I'm not paranoid. I bleive most police officer sare cool dudes; but sadly it's the minority that ruins things. Just like the criminal element - espicial;ly the violent ones - are a minority yet ruin for everyone too. *shrug*

Edited September 30, 2008 by Volourn

[Rostere]

I don't see how owning a gun protects you from a "gun- toting criminals". If they're professional criminals, they will always be better armed than you are. If they aren't, you have pushed the armed criminal in question to a dangerous situation which is more likely to end up with you being hurt than if you were unarmed. Making guns more easily available wouldn't make crime decrease, it would just increase the number of people being shot or even killed by guns. I firmly believe in mental healthcare and the prison system to decrease crime, something which (to a certain degree) the society itself is often responsible for.

[Xard]

"prior to this he was"

 

Nope. read the history. The guy was 'in the red' so to speak before this incident.

 

Because of internet videos. He did not have criminal register or anything like that

[Volourn]

"they aren't, you have pushed the armed criminal in question to a dangerous situation which is more likely to end up with you being hurt than if you were unarmed."

 

Yeha, because criminals have never killed unarmed victims.

 

Besdies, why are you blaming the victim? they didn't push the criminal into anything. That is 100% on the criminal. Period.

 

The moment the criminal shows up to commit a crime - gun or not - they are the ones who 'pushed' themselves 9and you the victim) into a dangerous situation.

 

By your logic, the police shouldn't have guns either because that forces criminals to have guns too. And, why should police bother to wear bullet proof fests when that 'pushes' criminals to use 'cop killing' bullets.

 

 

 

"If they're professional criminals, they will always be better armed than you are."

 

Simply not true, and when it is true.. so what? They could be better armed all they want. You don't need a bazooka to kill someone, or defend yourself. A hand gun works just as well... unless it's an army. L0L

 

 

I don't see how not having guns somehow protects you from gun toting criminals more thna having agun does. This myth that criminals will only shoot you if you have a gun is just propaganda from extreme anti gun groups. It's not logical. They're gun toting criminals for a reason - it's because they believe guns give them an advantage over their non gun toting victims.. and, they're right.

 

P.S. I'm not a gun loving maniac either. I've handled one gun and that was target practice at summer camp. I own no guns, and I don't plan too either; but this belief that banning gun s= Happy Happy Land is an absolute myth. Violent crime/murder/etc. have beena round much longer than guns existed to be sure.

[Nick_i_am]

My point is simple. Outlawing guns doens't stop criminals from havinga ccess to them as criminals by DEFINTION, don't care if soemthing is illegal. Duh. So, by essence, by outlawing guns, you are only taking guns away from those who would obey the law hence people who likely arne't a danger to going on mass murder sprees, anyways. So, what did you succeed in doing? Making it easier on the criminal to threaten/murder/rob innocent civilians.

 

It's a valid point to make, the only point that I was making is that, whatever the benefits of allowing innocent people to own guns are, there will still be a few bad apples who (probably) wouldn't have been able to get hold of guns otherwise, but will still misuse them.

 

I'm not saying that it overrules all the benefits, just that it's somthing that needs to be taken into account, possibly with better safeguards against just this type of incident.

[Walsingham]

This isn't the Sword Coast, Volo. Breaking the law doesn't automatically give you 'criminal status' and underworld access all areas. I've not met any spree killers, but your man there with the stupid videos would not get any help from any gangsters that I've ever met. He's clearly a loon, and any weapon you sold him would be sure to attract heavy police attention eventually. Plus you can't trust him not to tell people where he got it.

 

EDIT: changing tack from this slightly dog-eared debate on guns:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7642020.stm

 

People with rage problems lack the ability to produce cortisol.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Yeah it's a shame that the guy was spotted, but the polive did nothing. Now everyone is refusing to take responsibility, the minister of interior included. She promised to tighten gun laws after the Jokela incident, but did nothing but downplay the threat of these things happening again. She ****ed up, plain and simple, and is now refusing to take responsibility of her own **** ups. Finland sucks