Finland school gunman kills nine

[User Name]

Great theory, now see how well that works in the US

In a way it has, only in the opposite direction.

Kennesaw GA Gun Law:



On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.

[edit] Reports of resulting burglary-rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.[3] Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners of America). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban.[4]. These statistics are in turn disputed because the report in question lacked important considerations such as proportions for the population and growth over time.
Current statistics indicate that Kennesaw's crime rate[6] is lower compared to surrounding cities like Marietta[7], Smyrna[8], Alpharetta[9], or Atlanta[10].

 

[D3terioNation]

LoL so all these burglers know which house has a gun and which one doesnt. And you make it sound like people with guns are wasting burglers on a daily basis haha

Like people with guns are heroes or something, and the wimpy guy without one is getting his *** raped

 

[User Name]

LoL so all these burglers know which house has a gun and which one doesnt. And you make it sound like people with guns are wasting burglers on a daily basis haha

Like people with guns are heroes or something, and the wimpy guy without one is getting his *** raped

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the buglers DON'T know which house has a gun and which doesn't. So they will have to weigh in the fact that breaking into ANY house has the risk of being shot added in. If guns are banned, then guns are completely removed from the equation. The criminal now KNOWS he won't be facing a gun if he breaks in to a house.

Legal gun owners are not heroes. They are simply a deterrent to criminal activities. It's not going to stop every crime, but it does add an additional risk some would be crooks wouldn't be willing to take.

----------------Quotes from article linked at the bottom of this post-------------
"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."

"Seventy-four percent (of analysts) agreed with the statement that 'One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot.'"

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

 

[Murphy]

If guns are banned, then guns are completely removed from the equation. The criminal now KNOWS he won't be facing a gun if he breaks in to a house.

Oh, he'll be facing lots of guns unless you ban the police too.
It's not like guns are the only thing standing between you and an army of criminals.

 

[Shadrach]

The problem with allowing people to own guns for self-defense is, as I see it, you turn the citizenry into judge, jury and executioner at the same time.

Thats an *enourmous* responsibility for someone, and they have to decide whether to use the gun or not within a very short time. Burglary is a crime, yes, but not one deserving the death penalty, at least not in most civilized countries. Imagine you killed a burglar, and during the hearing after you found out he had a wife and children, and was just looking for something to sell to support them. How would you feel, the rest of your life? Cool about it?

Enforcing the law should be left to the police and the legal system, period.

 

[User Name]

Oh, he'll be facing lots of guns unless you ban the police too.
It's not like guns are the only thing standing between you and an army of criminals.

The fact that guns are legal may prevent you from ever having to call the police in the first place. Since the criminal has to think about facing your gun when he breaks in he may decide not to do it.

My grandmother is 84 years old. She lives in a bad area, and I've been trying to get her to move for a long time. If someone decides to break in on her do you think the cops can make it there before the crook finds her and beats her to death? Now I pray it never happens, but the fact is things like that do happen. She has a revolver and knows how to use it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

 

[D3terioNation]

The problem with allowing people to own guns for self-defense is, as I see it, you turn the citizenry into judge, jury and executioner at the same time.

Thats an *enourmous* responsibility for someone, and they have to decide whether to use the gun or not within a very short time. Burglary is a crime, yes, but not one deserving the death penalty, at least not in most civilized countries. Imagine you killed a burglar, and during the hearing after you found out he had a wife and children, and was just looking for something to sell to support them. How would you feel, the rest of your life? Cool about it?

Enforcing the law should be left to the police and the legal system, period.

Very true.

If you took someone out just because you could, I doubt many jurys would vote in your favour at the trial!

 

[Murphy]

The fact that guns are legal may prevent you from ever having to call the police in the first place. Since the criminal has to think about facing your gun when he breaks in he may decide not to do it.

Don't you think being prosecuted by the police is about as big a threat as your gun? Heck, for me it would be even bigger because I could just take you out while you aren't expecting it. If I shoot you in the back or while you sleep or while you are standing before me wondering what I'm about to do and I shoot you through my coat... you can be as packed with pistols as you want to be. No, as big a feeling of safety your gun may give you, my real problem is the police. They might take five minutes to get here but what then?

Your gun is only the bigger threat I know you are going to kill me and the police is only going to lock me up. Now think about this: Does a burglar deserve to be shot, or does he deserve to be locked up?

 

[User Name]

"But how can you set yourself as jury, judge and executioner?"


If a person must fire on an intruder, he/she would be doing so only in order to protect lives of self and dependents. Not to punish, not to discourage criminal behavior but to save lives from a predator.

Breaking into somebody's home is not an accidental act. A burglar who has no regard for the sanctity of your home would likely have no more regard for your physical well-being. With that said, please place your own safety first and foremost in your mind. Lots of times home defense cases never even go to trial, and when they do the people are found not guilty by juries. I would much rather have the death of a bugler on my conscience than the death of a family member because I couldn't do anything.

Again this says nothing about the crimes that never happen because guns are legal. Again I quote:

"One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot."

 

[Nimsky]

Oh, he'll be facing lots of guns unless you ban the police too.
It's not like guns are the only thing standing between you and an army of criminals.

The police isn't responsible for your safety. They're not there to protect your life. You're fully responsible for your own safety.

 

[I. Kant]

The police isn't responsible for your safety. They're not there to protect your life. You're fully responsible for your own safety.

You are referring to the US High Court ruling that declared that, I presume? If so, the wording referred to "individual lives". The police is (should be) responsible for the lives (edit: well, "safety", however you understand it) of the Public in any country, even the US. It's just a legal safety catch to prevent individual people suing the government on the basis that the police failed to protect someone individual's life.
Yes, it's wrong and bad, but it's there so that every other Joe and John doesn't have to pay (through tax money which would be awarded as damages to the family of Bill) for the fact that the police failed to protect the life of Bill. It's wrong, I know, perhaps it shouldn't be like that, but that's America. Perhaps the take on this in other countries is different.

 

[Nimsky]

Yeah, the Supreme Court says that. I can't find the source though. Bottom line, counting on the police to protect your life is a bad idea. I suspect it isn't much different in most European countries. It isn't called self defense for nothing.

 

[User Name]

Most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."
​

 

[I. Kant]

You can call me a convert, if you will, because I did take the effort to read through most of that Gun Facts pdf you linked to. Have all the guns you need, keep them, seriously. Just not in Poland and not in Europe, thank you very much. Yes, the numbers are showing that crime is going down in places with guns and going up in places without them. Funny thing, they talked of DC in the US where after a complete gun ban crime went up sky-high and - whadya know - just across the river, where guns are legal, crime did not go up. Like you couldn't take your legally acquired gun across the river into DC, because there's border guards and stuff, right?
Gun-free zones won't work when there's guns in circulation just outside the school premises, for example.

I said it once, I'll say it again - in a reasonably well-working society guns are not needed. Just how can you cure them? Overcrowding of big cities leads to aggression, small cities can have unnecessary isolation. Communicating via the Internet more than in person can be held accountable to some extent. ****, I'm guilty of that myself - I hardly know my neighbours and we live in the same block of flats where there's just 16 flats. I know them by sight and sometimes talk to perhaps two or three of them.
I think our cities need more places where people can do things together - like doing sports or perhaps we could try reinstate the institution of discussion clubs, so that people would talk in person, not on forums (the Internet, however, having the advantage of providing this nice bit of anonymity in case you want to reveal something potentially shameful about yourself).
I also heard of one nice thing people in Scandinavia (Sweden, to be particular) have - they go to some forest, to an organised track and just walk there. I've forgotten who told me this, but the idea was that people keep walking at a ***** pace and spend time as a group, perhaps hardly even talking, but just doing something together and then they call it a day and declare it a fine day out.

However, reconnecting with your neighbours is still not the ultimate solution to the ills troubling our societies, I guess. Look at Amsteten. The neighbours claim not to have known anything and from what I know they did come into contact. Perhaps not enough, or perhaps these are things you'll never be able to learn just as a neighbour.
I know people in villages in Poland are very often well-informed of, for instance, the husband beating his wife, yet they won't do anything - "because it's not my business". Hell, if they do, the beaten woman will attack them saying - "It's not your business and he's my lad!". I know this for a fact, I've tried to help (in the city, though) and one person I know also had the same situation.
You can't help people that don't want to be helped - or it's very difficult, at least. Any other ideas?

[EDIT: Lol? B R I S K is a curse word? I meant B R I S K pace, meaning fast, how was that a curse word??]

 

[Grobut]

Grobut, you've mentioned that other weapons have been used to...

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...

I've cut your reply a bit short to save space

Look, i'm certainly not about to tell you that guns are harmless playthings, they are not, if used wrong they are extremely dangerous, and criminals and psycho's certainly can use them very very wrong with disastrous outcomes, and yes, if i was some wacked out nutjob who wanted to go on a killing spree, and i had the choice between a gun or a knife, i'd take the gun, it'd be easier to get kills with.

But this is also why i will never be a proponent of zero gun control for Europe, i dont want a society where any dimwit over 18 can walk into a department store and walk out with a brand new firearm and ammo (though i do not considder Airsoft or Paintball guns under that statement), no more than you do, its not smart, its not safe.

But then, thats hardly how things work here now is it? most places in Europe you can own a gun, but, you must obtain a license, you must have a clean record, you must learn the safety rules, the laws, all of this, and hell, i woulden't mind if they tossed in a psych evaluation too for good measure, but once you've passed thease checks and balences, then what's wrong with recreational gun ownership by law abiding citizens who have proven themselves capable of the responsibillity?

There's a little too much Gun-phobia and emotional knee-jerking going around on the subject, yes Finland could definately use some more checks and balances, it would probably be an excellent idea if you needed the training and the license and all that, but thats a far cry from "OMFG GUNZ R EVUL!!! BAAAAN THEM!!!" which we see too much of.

The goal should be keeping guns away from the people who are unfit to opperate/own them, not to prevent law abiding citizens from shooting paper targets at a range or go hunting, whats needed is smart legislation, not a which hunt, you get my point i hope?

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.

Personally i think this issue is too important to leave it to private funding, not that private funding would be bad, certainly not, but governments absolutely need to step up to the platter and take it seriously, even if it does mean raising the taxes a bit.

Are any of us really well off living in a world where our next door neighbour could be a known whack job, who could turn dangerous, but the system wont even bother with him untill they can proove he has comitted some horrible crime because of his ailment? i think not.

But ok, this does come from a Scandinavian, who is used to welfare and paying taxes, and extensively, one who feels that humans are more important than having an extra 20,- Dkr in my pocket every month.

 

[BuddyLee]

I think we need National Healthcare before we need gun control. Maybe more of the nutters would get the help they need.

My fathers .22 Revolver saved my old landladies life... with a little help from my puppydog.

My dog woke us up one night because some guy drove onto the property at 3am with his lights off and parked in between some trees, we lived out in the boondocks.

He was parked about 300 meters from the main house. It was extremely odd because if he had troubles he could have stopped at the mushroom farm security station about another 300 meters down the drive.

My father knew something was not right, so we shut the dog up and he loaded his pistol. We both snuck through the wooded area to the entrance to the main house and lay in ambush.

The perpetrator got to within 5 feet of us in the dark and my dad fired 3 of the 9 shots over his head. I have never seen someone run so fast in my life.

Now with hindsight 20/20 I think my father should have killed him. The Sheriff never came out so I am sure the guy was a criminal, and who else has he hurt since then.

The landlady was 85 years old and the type who kept all her money under her mattress. She also had 3 sons in both theaters in WW2 so her house was full of historical antiques. She had a complete NAZI playing card set including the swastika poker chips and cards with a carousel and several rifles, an aircraft propeller from WW1, and so much other stuff you guys would have loved to check out.

So yeah, guns help keep Joe Public safe, I can attest to that.

 

[Murphy]

A burglar who has no regard for the sanctity of your home would likely have no more regard for your physical well-being.

Not true, and not yours to decide.

Nimsky: What about my earlier post?

Why is it even safer for you NOT to have a gun?
If I could take money from you knowing you could not harm me or do anything against it, why would I want to harm you? Even if I was a cold-hearted professional who doesn't care about lives lost. If I get what I want without committing the biggest crime there is, why would I commit it?
The worst thing that can happen to you is that you lose a bit of stuff you can get back from your insurance company or from the guy himself once he gets caught.
Now lets bring a gun into the affair: If I want to take money from you but I knew you have a weapon and you could not only prevent me from getting your money but also take my live, isn't it my best bet to kill you before you can kill me and take your money afterwards?
The worst thing that can happen to you now is that you get killed my a ruthless criminal who thinks that's his safest bet.

Now we up the stakes and play for your life instead of your money. I don't want to take your money now but my goal is to kill you. Would you be able to prevent it with a gun? The sad truth is, you can't.
The killer could ring your bell and shoot you through the door, she could pretend to need your toilet and stab you once you turn your back, the list is endless. If someone wants to murder you you are dead.

Where are you going to draw the line? When is shooting at me self-defense and when is it the killing of an innocent?
1. If you say you won't shoot me before I haven't shot at you, that first shot might have leveled you already.
2. If you say you won't shoot before I raise my gun I might be quicker on the draw.
3. If you say you won't shoot before you see my gun I'm going to shoot you through my coat.
4. If you say you won't shoot before I show hostile behaviour I will pass you on the streets and shoot you in the back.
5. If you say you won't shoot me unless I look suspicious I'm going to be the mailman that rings your bell and blasts you through your door.
6. If you say you won't shoot at every man-sized shadow I might just be that man-sized shadow and shoot you from the dark.

You say you want to prepare yourself for that rarest of cases that someone is actually breaking in your house in order to harm you or your family. You must be a very careful guy, because me I wouldn't want to have a gun just for that because the likelyhood that something like that happens to me once in a life-time is too small.
A very careful guy though cannot afford to NOT shoot in any of the scenarios above because each of them can result in your death (and lets not forget about the subsequent rape of your wife).

I think you will agree that you can never just hose down everyone who gets near you (which would still leave skilled marksmen an opportunity to attack from farther away) and as it's up to everyone to draw the line the line is drawn too low in many cases so many people die who did not deserve to die. On both sides of the fence. Even if I trust you to draw it just right.

If you really want to decrease the chance of you getting harmed don't buy a gun but as a society decrease the need for crimes, the drive for crimes and increase the percentage of solved police cases. Not so that more criminals are behind bars but so that future criminals see that they WILL go to prison and they do not stand a chance of committing a crime and getting away with it.
Make the job of a policeman a respected job again and don't let violent retards run the stations. See that their time isn't taken up with enforcing arbitrary and useless laws.

The problem is that it won't help if only you give up your guns because as someone else pointed out earlier, the criminal can't know who has a gun and who hasn't so he is likely preparing for the worst case scenario of you having one. The law has to be changed so that everyone has to turn in their weapons.
If a criminal can still get one, so what? Read above, all of it applies for armed criminals. Switchblade already said earlier that in societies where only criminals have guns, guns are only used on criminals and in Germany that seems to be the case too. Apart from the occasional husband who shoots his wife with a hunting rifle, but those aren't the cases pro-gun activists want to use in an argument, I'm sure.

Disclaimer: I do not intend to shoot Nimsky, lol. I am also not for a total ban of guns, just for strict gun control. If you are a collector, a hunter or a forester you can still have your gun as long as you lock it up safely while you are not using it and as long as you go through the hassle of aquiring a license for it.
I also think that air-soft guns and paintball "guns" should not be subject of gun-control laws. They are moderately dangerous toys, just like a baseball bat and should be treated as such.

 

[User Name]

This whole time I haven't really been talking about the crimes in progress. I've been talking about the crimes that are prevented simply by the fact that guns are legal. Believe me. I hope I never have to face down a criminal with a firearm. I live in a low crime area so crime it's not my problem (I hope). That doesn't mean it won't happen.

However, as many as 97,000+ people a year prevent themselves from being mugged, raped, or possibly killed because they have a firearm. They didn't all use them either, in fact most of them didn't. Even then these statistics only talk about crimes in progress that are prevented. There is no way to know how many crimes never occur because criminals simply don't want to risk being shot.

Quote from here http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/anti-gun-propaganda/

"In 1997, he said there were about 440,000 violent crimes and 9,000 murders committed with guns. By contrast, there were over 2 million violent crimes prevented through the use of guns. The media, Lott said, focus on the former category because it produces an actual victim or a dead body. The latter usually produces no rapist or murderer or actual crime. He said the media’s emphasis on the bad things that happen with guns causes the public to think that guns are more of a problem than a solution. After the Atlanta day-trader attack in the summer, which was widely publicized by the media, Lott said there were three incidents in Atlanta within ten days where citizens used guns to stop similar attacks. “Those get very little attention,” he pointed out."

 

[I. Kant]

Grobut, I have to say I'm much closer to fully agreeing with you than I was after your first posts, I guess.

Look, whenever I said something about limiting/banning guns it was, as I've already mentioned, a short-hand for severely limiting their availability. Perhaps different countries need different levels of restrictiveness, but here in the European Union I think it should be pretty much the same everywhere, since we're in the Schengen zone now and as it's been pointed out earlier, limited area gun-free zones simply don't work.

Also, if you want to shoot a paper target, doing so with a real gun sounds like overkill. Sure, it must be fun, but you could just as well use an airgun or an airsoft gun. It's still fun, I know I tried (haven't tried real guns, so perhaps it's not for me to say).

And I agree with you as well on the additional money you could keep in your pocket or spend on making the healthcare system this one bit better. Deffo people need the money more than your pocket does.

 

[BuddyLee]

This whole time I haven't really been talking about the crimes in progress. I've been talking about the crimes that are prevented simply by the fact that guns are legal. Believe me. I hope I never have to face down a criminal with a firearm. I live in a low crime area so crime it's not my problem (I hope). That doesn't mean it won't happen.

However, as many as 97,000+ people a year prevent themselves from being mugged, raped, or possibly killed because they have a firearm. They didn't all use them either, in fact most of them didn't. Even then these statistics only talk about crimes in progress that are prevented. There is no way to know how many crimes never occur because criminals simply don't want to risk being shot.

Hopefully the guy my pops shot at decided to flip burgers not burgle people.

Or at least go to school and learn how to be a white collar criminal.