Finland school gunman kills nine

[SchutzeSepp]

you shouldn't compare US and the UK lol, it makes europe look bad. from what we see on the news here, it seems that the UK is the "brooklyn" of europe, lots of crime suicide and murders .

what i think causes these things to happen are a combination of different things that increase the chances for such events to take place. and it seems the USA has them all.
-deep gun culture and powerfull gun lobby
-easy gun acces for anybody, and verry large amount of guns in circulation
-selfish society
-paranoid culture created by sensationalistic media
-etc...
many countries have at least one of these things, while still not having any or many problems. like canada who has the same gun culture as the US, but they are lucky to still have a professionalistic media, and a society based on solidarity. so that their citizens stay rational when something happens, and don't end up in the same endless spiral as the US, where everybody thinks they need guns, because everybody has guns and because their media makes everybody paranoid. and evidently their society became as violent and dangerous now, as they thought it was from the start.
all european countries have been "americanised" to different degrees by taking over their culture and habits, such as holland and finland. in holland it causes no problems because they have strict gun controll, but in finland... well you saw what happened.

it seems to me that the US with its culture, will never ever take on one of the true causes of their violent society. and a strongly repressive soviety is not the way either, they have extremely strict laws and punishments compared to europe. but that never helped. like in belgium you can kill as many people you like, you will almost certainly be out of jail in 10 years. and if you are rich or a politician, you won't go to jail at all. but thats everywhere the case i guess

edit: gun nuts will always put the fault on individual nuts, who they clame would have gone on a rampage anyway, with or without guns. and that it's not the guns fault, but that those people must be threated in institutions.
but the problem with that is that in most, if not all countries there are potential mass murdering lunatics on the run everywhere. and pretty much every country doesn't give these people the help they need, or protect the sane people for what these nuts could do to them. thats because we live in "advanced" countries, where you can't lock away anybody against their will if there is a 0.00001 chance that they could harm others.
where the difference is, is that in countries with a develloped gun culture, these nuts will be stimulated to do something stupid with guns, while in countries with strict gun laws, these people just can't get acces to guns at all. at least not as fast

 

[Oldih]

edit: gun nuts will always put the fault on individual nuts, who they clame would have gone on a rampage anyway, with or without guns. and that it's not the guns fault, but that those people must be threated in institutions.

You don't need to be a gun nut to be rational enough to understand that simply getting a handgun does not make someone (ok, there is this 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance) to have misantrophic ideas, think he is great politician, babbling suddenly about how society sucks and stuff like that. And gun is merely a tool in these cases, and for the same reason banning firearms could potentially decrease the odds for something like this to happen, but then again having just enforced (and strict) gun laws could also potentially decrease something like this to happen.

So yes, having a gun can make people illusioned that "ok, I am ****ed up enough and now that I have a gun now I can seriously be even more ****ed up^2" but seriously, the ultimate causes are always originating from somewhere else than just acquiring a firearm. Firearms just tend to play the central role when some dumb**** goes and does something like this.

 

[RedGuardist]

Anyway, this whole debate is useless to me, you want to prevent stuff like this happening in the future, then stop treating the symptoms and attack the source headon instead, the gun did not pull its own trigger, a very sick young man did, and it could have been prevented had he gotten help before he went off the deep end, why the hell do we sit idly by whilst our societies create monsters, and we do nothing to fix or even patch the problem? but instead waste our time blaming scapegoats, like violent games, Rock'n Roll and the weapon used, wake the hell up and do something usefull, something that will not only stop thease people from becoming monsters, but possibly make them into functional and happy people, its about damn time that mental health became a hot topic, and something was done about it!

A very good post. And a very good question.

There are numerous answers to this question, but in my opinion one of these reasons is something like this.

Because we, ordinary citizens, have lost the political power to make any difference anymore. The societies we are living in western world are nowadays run only by money. Money and economy is the name of the game. It

 

[Uurastaja]

Not surprised that Saari and Auvinen planned these acts together. Both of them have the same look, taste in music, ideologies and similar behavior.

This morning I watched TV a bit and I happened to see an interview with some old-looking lady who was blabbering something about controlling the Internet to prevent these type of acts from happening. A politican also said she suggested the government an anti-gun law straight after the Jokela shooting, but it never got in and now she's trying again.

I must say it's pretty funny how media and vast majority seem to ignore Finland's depressive situation as a welfare state at the moment. It's always about blaming how crazy one is.

 

[Murphy]

Another problem is that psychiatric care is still seen as something for crazy people while it shouldn't be a bigger deal than going to a regular doctor. It seems like in the higher classes in the US this problem isn't that big anymore as many people get themselves a shrink but in Europe you are still seen as crazy if you get psychiatric care.
We had a school psychiatrist and I had problems back in school. Not because of the grades but more because of occasional depression for various reasons but I would have NEVER visited her. If anyone finds out about it you are screwed. If you are a victim of bullying or mobbing (I never was. Just saying) the help you get there can't possibly be worth risking your bullies finding out about you going there.
There are many institutions were a troubles person can get help. In Germany we have "Seelsorge Hotlines" where you can talk to someone on the phone who will listen to you, we have psychiatrists, school psychiatrists, liaison teachers (you English folk have strange words, lol), etc. and I'm sure they have similar institutions in other countries as well, but I'm willing to be my butt that none of the school gunmen went to any of those!

On the flipside we had a suicide case at our school where a girl hanged herself in her attic appearantly because she was bullied in class. She asked to get put in another parallel class but nobody took her seriously. Now she's dead.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Guns don't kill people, that's true, If some kid goes nuts he will harm people no matter what
but if there are no guns available "mass murders" like this will not happen.
If the guy had a knive he probably would have killed or injured, but I think it is easier to stop a guy with a knife then a guy with one (or more) guns. at least you would have a better chance

I don't think I would ever feel safe in a country where everybody has the "right" to have a gun.

Very true. Guns don't kill but they sure as hell make killing a lot easier.

The percentage of people that get murdered in countries with liberal gun laws (or where the laws are simply not enforced effectively) compared to those with strict gun laws speak for themselves. You can argue your way around the problem with stuff like "knives can kill people too" or "they could build bombs" but these are facts that can't be ignored.

Sure the problems behind people killing each other lie elsewhere. The thing is: They are so deeply rooted in our societies that no law or politician can change them. Not in the short run and probably not even ever. With strict gun laws you can however severly limit the means murder. It's certainly not the nice "grab the problem by the roots" solution but it's the best choice there is.

 

[Fedorov]

also even if normal outlaws and robbers get their guns in the blackmarket, school gunmen are not that type they don't move in that world, they'll get them legally or ask someone to buy them for them if they don't have the age

 

[Reddog]

Yeh its tough to be sympathetic to these people who view mass gun killings the same way the rest of us see a large motor accident!

I haven't seen anyone in here doing this, that's a pretty insulting statement about everyone who doesn't fall in line with narrow views. Grow up and quit it with the flame bait.

And Kudos to Grobut, best post in the thread imho.

 

[D3terioNation]

You're the flame bait mate

Get off the pro-gun band-wagon ffs

 

[SchutzeSepp]

many people here live in countries where they have the priviledge to own guns, and many seem to collect ww2 firearms aswell. and they feel agressed when others talk about taking away that priviledge, wich i understand totally. but im sure many of them understand that their priviledge comes with a high cost, you may think you are a safe person with guns, and that you won't ever use it against anybody our yourself. or that your kids are safe with a gun at home. (we were all kids, the first thing i did when i was home alone was to take out my dads hunting rifle, or smash live hunting ammo with a hammer to collect all the nice shiny balls inside. while my dad always thought i didn't know where he hid it all.)
but that is a rather selfish way of thinking, it's a priviledge that the ones who use it will defend at all costs, and will find excuses for all the incidents and accidents that happen because of this priviledge.
it's exactly the same as the right to own dangerous dogs, people who have them will defend their right at all costs, and when a random kid gets torn appart by a dangerous dog, they will blame the owner and say it won't happen to them. but i really think people in the first place who buy these dogs, or guns (not talking about colectors or people that actually use them for their job) well i think it's them who need therapy. you simply don't need guns or dangerous dogs.
those idiot 20 year olds who buy these 1000$ dogs to show off in the street, only do it because they are mentally insecure, and feel they need to force respect off other people by buying dangerous dogs, wearing brand clothing, have guns...

 

[Jaesperson]

right. tell me one good reason to own a gun except for that 4 guys enter your sleeping room and rape your wife-scenario. also the statements about criminals in europe owning guns but not using them as they do over in the US should let you raise your eyebrows.
to me what kant and i think switchblade posted here was the best. grobut took apart my statement about people being shot and gun ownership in the US. maybe i put it too simple, but if you really read Kant's post, you'd have got what i meant.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I live here in the USA and own several guns (for hunting, shotgun, muzzleloader etc). I don't own them for protection. Now, I don't know how others see us, but I certainly don't live in fear or go around wondering if someone who owns a gun is going to go off the deep end and shoot me or my family. I also don't appreciate as a gun owner being lumped in a category of "gun nuts". I am much more worried about some teenage girl driving around and texting on the phone at the same time. These people are all over the road being a menace.

I can respect other countries' cultures towards gun ownership or not, and everyone else must realize that depending on where you live you may have different views on these things. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

In this particular case, besides the individual defininately being disturbed, the school shooting probably has more to do with the Media sensationalizing it than anything else. As others stated, he could just as easily gotten in a car and decided to drive into a crowd of people, or use some other method. It is a shame that there are people like this around the world who are just nuts or don't get the help they need, or are not caught despite the obvious signs.

 

[Donut]

Thats NOT funny murphy...

This is really sad, and why does this keep happening in Finland of all places? Its pretty damn shocking to us fellow Scandinavians, until you read that Finland has the "3rd highest gun ownership rate" after the US and ... Yemen, according to the BBC. I wasn't even aware of that, and apparently they're not all hunting rifles

Wake up Finns, change your laws!
(will probably get locked soon anyway...)

lol? Changing the laws wont change some peoples mental state. What needs to be done is better, more readily available, affordable mental health care, and a great reduction in the social stigma that goes with seeing a psychatrist/psycologist. Also, better identification of potentially dangerous people, which failed in this case(I think), as I believe that the guy shouldve been taken in for observation, to ascertain whether or not hes a threat to himself or others, instead of just talking to the cops(didnt say in story that I saw, but Im guessing it was at his house).

right. tell me one good reason to own a gun except for that 4 guys enter your sleeping room and rape your wife-scenario. also the statements about criminals in europe owning guns but not using them as they do over in the US should let you raise your eyebrows.
to me what kant and i think switchblade posted here was the best. grobut took apart my statement about people being shot and gun ownership in the US. maybe i put it too simple, but if you really read Kant's post, you'd have got what i meant.

One good reason? Just in case. Thats all Id need. I damn sure wouldnt want to be completely at the mercy of someone with a gun, because I cant fight back. Id much rather be able to confront an attacker with equal force, instead of saying, "Whatever, man, just dont kill me." Besides, did anyone else notice that Finlands said to have one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the workd, but little gun crime? Attitude. We here in the US are kinda screwy, and not everyone should own a gun, but if youre a well-rounded, mentally stable person, I see no reason to deny them a gun, after proper training, with recertification every year(my opinion).

 

[Grobut]

What needs to be done is better, more readily available, affordable mental health care, and a great reduction in the social stigma that goes with seeing a psychatrist/psycologist. Also, better identification of potentially dangerous people, which failed in this case(I think), as I believe that the guy shouldve been taken in for observation, to ascertain whether or not hes a threat to himself or others, instead of just talking to the cops(didnt say in story that I saw, but Im guessing it was at his house).

Aint that the truth, even here in Denmark, famed for its social systems and welfare state, all mental healthcare is not supported by the state, you have to pay for it yourself (only if you are admitted to a psych ward is it free), and it sure as hell aint cheap! and there is no insurance that covers it either.

Thats a total failure if you ask me, how can we have a "welfare state" that does nothing to help a large group of sick people? its as bad as saying "yes you get free healthcare, UNLESS you have cancer, we dont do cancer".

And just to add insult to injury, mental problems are becoming rampant amongst our youth, every year there are more cases, but every year, they also remove a ton of beds from the psych ward, there are huuuge waiting lists, and you wont even be considdered for treatment unless you are extremely sick, and have a mile long medical/criminal history to proove it.

My sister works in the field, and man, i could tell you some storries.. its pretty horrific how many and how severe cases are turned down on a regular basis, because there's just not enough beds to go around, and these people, they often go and commit suicide, or desperate acts of violence (or worse, they have a full blown psychosis) because thats the only way they will be taken seriously by the system.


And i dont think the situation is any better in the rest of Europe or in the states, and that's just appauling..

There is only one thing all spree killers have in common, and it is not guns, spree's have been carried out with a multitude of weapons not just guns, no, that one thing is mental illness, and i don't think there is one single country in the world that takes the issue seriously, because its taboo, its expensive, and since there are so relatively few cases that turn out really horrible, its cost effective to do nothing and then blame it on conveniant scapegoats when something does happen.. hell, as a politician you can even turn it onto a friggen PR goldmine, you just have to get infront of a camera and make it seem like you care and want to do something.

 

[Shadrach]

I have much respect for collectors of old ww2 or special rifles and those who use a gun for hunting, and have a genuine interest and knowledge of their history. Many of those guys on these forums. A small part of me would even like the gun laws here in Norway to be more lax, so I could own an awesome Mosin or k98

However I have absolutely no understanding of the nuts (yes nuts!) who want to own a bl**dy modern assault rifle 'cause they are 'cool' or whatever.

And I think just better and compulsory training and yearly recertification like Donut says would greatly improve the situation and catch the nuts ready to go berserk. A real collector and hobbyist would certainly not mind doing this, as they shoot regularly at ranges anyway. They are not the ones we want to stop, its those guys ordering an M4 over the Internet, and keeps it in his basement until he has a 'bad' day...

 

[Reddog]

You're the flame bait mate

Get off the pro-gun band-wagon ffs

I have my own views and opinions and they're not about to change because some whiney pom on the internet tells me to.

However I'll cut you a deal, if you jump off the 'extreme left douche bag' band wagon I'll think about it, how's that sound?

 

[User Name]

I wish people wouldn't say owning a gun makes you turn into a criminal. If that were true, I'd be a criminal several times over. Along with around 80,000,000 other U.S. citizens last time I checked.

I feel sorry for the victims of this crime, which seemed to have been lost in this debate a long time ago, but banning guns is not the answer. It never has been. Work on the root causes of the problem.

I don't own firearms for self defense. I own them because I enjoy punching holes in paper targets around 100 meters away. I also collect firearms of historical significance. I live in a safe neighborhood in an area with a very low crime rate. Self defense was never on my mind during a single firearm purchase. If you take away firearms as a knee jerk reaction to a crime then you take away my hobby.

I never have, nor will I ever use a firearm to commit a crime. So why should I be punished, along with every other law-abiding citizen who enjoys this hobby, because some nut job went crazy? Should they take away classic cars because someone drives a '69 Camaro through a crowd of people?

If you want to flame me, or tear apart my post, go for it. I've said my piece and I'll say no more in this thread.

 

[KrazyKraut]

And if you read the posts here noone said owning a gun made you a criminal. And it's nice to shoot paper targets, I did it myself. Sure it's fun. But I would sacrifice that one hobby for the increased safety of a gun-free everyday life anytime.

 

[Murphy]

We have shooting clubs in Germany were you can sign up and use their ranges. You don't have to own a gun yourself (because almost no one owns a gun in Germany except for foresters and hunters) but I guess it would be possible to change the system so that everyone can have their own gun stored there in a vault, not at home.
That way hobbyists such as you, User Name, could still practise their hobby while there are still strict gun-control laws in place.

When a member of such a shooting club commited a school shooting in Germany there was talk about banning the clubs though because some thought they told him how to operate the guns and that that's where he got his weapons.
So it may be some sort of a loop-hole in some circumstances but so is outfitting police with guns and allowing hunters to have rifles and pistols and forcing foresters to get adequate weaponry.
In my opinion shooting clubs are a great compromise between strict gun-control and the hobby of shooting.

 

[I. Kant]

As KrazyKraut aptly pointed out, I don't think "the extreme left douche bags", including me appraently , put forward the gun+citizen=criminal equation. No, it is not like that. It is the guns with citizens = happy BUT also easy access to excellent tools of killing for those discontented psychopaths.

Grobut, you've mentioned that other weapons have been used to commit killing sprees. In all probability, that's true, but I think it's already been pointed out and agreed to by the douche bags here .

Yes, a gun is merely a tool. Can someone tell me what is a gun a tool for? I was always under the impression that the primary function of a gun is to injure/kill living creatures. What follows from this, the secondary function is to create in other people the fear of the possibility of a gun being used - that is, to intimidate (in case of a criminal use, as in in a robbery) or to prevent people from doing stupid things (as in the police - or the army in an occupied country - having the threat of being able to use lethal force). Thus, I think, using a gun for safety would also fall into the secondary category - I remember a photo from New Orleans back during the Deluge, where there was some shack with a board put up that said, in graffiti, "I have a gun, will use it". So safety achieved at the expense of threatening to injure/kill the potential wrong-doer.

Now, there are additional uses for this tool, let's call them tertiary uses - like shooting targets for fun (which is, if you look at it real closely, a simulation of shooting to real targets, in order to possess the necessary skill to engage and disable real targets should the situation warrant such use of a gun; perhaps you never thought about it this way, but it is the implied, underlying reason behind shooting to targets), like collecting guns (old or new), like adding some macho value to your persona, and whatever other non-essential and creative uses for a tool such as a gun people can find.

Let me put it in simple, I hope, words, again: less guns in society means smaller availability of guns to psychopaths who will be looking for the perfect tool to kill. Since a gun is a tool designed to kill, most of them go for a gun. Killing nine people with a gun is easier than killing them with a knife. Not everyone can construct bombs and driving into a crowd of people may or may not happen. But a gun is also the ultimate expressioin of the will to kill - maybe that's why so many psychos go for a gun. They are not as cold and calculating SoBs as they would like to think (apparently, since so many of them move within similar thought patterns?) and nor are they as cold and calculating as Al Khaida types who said "look, a plane is a very cost-effective cruise missile". You need a whole team with expertise, excellent preparation to do what Al Khaida did.
And when you have a gun you just need to walk into a class room, pull your gun and squeeze that trigger a couple of times.

Guns do kill, because that's what they were designed to do. Of course, banning - or limiting; whenever I wrote about banning guns it was really a short-hand for "severly limiting the legal availability" - will not eliminate deaths completely and nor will it solve the underlying mental problems of these people. What it is, is a readily available, effective (I dare say) and immediately working (if that includes some gun amnestia for giving back your guns should you cease to qualify for owning one after the ban comes into effect) solution.

So, let's talk about the real problem.

Governments don't have the money to spare for mental healthcare? Well, they don't. Maybe there's something ordinary people can do to help? I don't know, I've been thinking about it since it's been brought up in this topic. Meanwhile, I'm curious of your ideas, folks.

P.S. Please, don't lock it up. When I used the douche bag phrase it was not meant to cause offence (nor do I think Reddog really wanted to stirr that up). I guess the use of such phrases goes a long way to prove that employing sweeping generalisations in a discussion is harmful to the level of the said discussion. Also, a willingness to understand the other side is very helpful, I guess, and I do understand you guys. I do understand you, Donut, when you state your good reason as "just in case". It's just that - to my eyes - the just in case argument applies to the following statement: "let's limit the number of guns in circulation, just in case some nut decides to use one".
Oh, and I suppose with guns not being as openly available in a society, the guns factories wouldn't see the point of producing as many of them. Which would also, somehow, limit the numbers open to the big, bad criminals. Or would it?

P.P.S.: I commend your patience, if you really read through this. Have a nice day.