Seeing as every forum with atleast one finnish user will have a topic like this I will do my duty as a sheep and make one myself.

Today In Kauhajoki students were taking tests as usual when a guy pulls a gun from his bag and starts shooting at everyone. He managed to kill nine which included (How do you say it? ah fudge it) "People from the Authoritys". Two other he managed to wound. After a while shot he himself in the head and survived. And for some other reason a fire broke out and thee firemen were at the scen in fime minutes. After a while in the hospital the shooter died. So far there ar no mtoives to why he did it.

My opinion is that he was just mental.

School shootings really have no motive other than the clichè: I wasn't loved. I listened to rap music. No one liked me. I was teased. Its the same thing, just different people. My question is: where the hell are the parents? We always point blame at other things-- media, music, videogames: anything that doesn't point the finger at the parents for not noticing their child is a little off-balanced. If you have a crazy kid, don't have guns available in the house.

This is a sad day, and not only because this happened.

It's sad because these are so (relatively) frequent here in the States, I no longer feel sorrow. I've become completely desensitized to the topic.

There was no need for parenting in this case because he was about twenty something and the first time in Jokkela the kid ( another person icase you wondered) was mental and was teased since like preschool. In this case the police don't know. One sad part about the police was that the day before (I.E. yesterday) They were interrogating him for putting up a video on youtube in which he had his gun and was saying something and stuff (I didn't see it) and they DIDN'T take away his gun license.

You can still fire a gun without a license. Finger and trigger with bullet in gun... you don't need a paper to tell you to do it. What is sad is that the parents should have been doing something before it got this far. Like Alexandre, I'm a little desensitized on the subject, seeing as how it does happen pretty frequently here in the States. A parent, or at least an involved one, is usually pretty receptive to their children when something doesn't seem right. I'm sure the guy would come home and act strangely, especially if he was teased as horribly as he probably made it out to be. I admit that children can be mean. But I also feel that parents should reach out to their children and actually try to be involved in their lives rather than throwing them to the wolves like their parents did.

At the same time, I also blame the person who shot them. He should have been given help. A counselor, meds, strapped to a bed-- something.

Euthanasia at birth...

Why do I have this urge to agree with you?

What I find stupid of the cops though is that they interrogated him the day before and can say with a straight face that they don't know who he is.

Is the town fairly small or is it a large suburban area? Usually with large places, seeing a face twice, even in the same day is hard to remember. I know for a fact. At my pharmacy, I see so many people pass through that I don't remember faces very well. The patient will remember me-- but I feel silly when I don't recall helping them.

Oh, boo hoo.

School shootings are almost unheard of in my country and I don't give a shit. I'm sure it's a tragedy for anybody involved or close to the issue. The idea that people unrelated to the issue should care is a ridiculous one. If it was reasonable to be genuinely sad when bad things happen to people you don't know, everybody would be paralyzed with it. The world is a shitty place.

You not being sad about something that doesn't affect you in the slightest (or even come close to doing so) isn't being desensitized. If you were affected, you'd be oversensitive. Seriously, it's the worst part of this preoccupation with feelings our society has - everybody needs to have lots of them all the time and if you don't there's something wrong with you. If there's something wrong with me, it's certainly not related to the fact I don't really care about people dying on the other side of the world.


Problem is that we lie to them. We tell them there's justice. We tell them the world is fair. We tell them that they're special little souls who are unique and wonderful. Kids will believe just about anything you tell them. Hell, one of my sisters knows I lie to her constantly and she still believes everything I tell her.

The people who do these kinds of things aren't sick. It's not something that was done to them. It's something they chose to do. Should their parents have been more involved? Usually. Were they bullied a lot? Probably. Listen to rap music? Sure, why not. Except there are hundreds of thousands of kids who meet all of those criteria and don't go around shooting people. Calling them sick takes away their responsibility for their actions. That's bullshit. They're about as sick as alcoholics. They choose to act. They may be too weak to make a good choice but they still choose.

One of the traits that makes us human, throughout almost every culture, is the concept of sympathy. Not the overused, pity-riddled modern version of sympathy, but the traditional idea of sympathy (which, I suppose, is what we call empathy... oh well. I prefer to use Hume's sympathy anyway), feeling what someone else is feeling, is constant. So, while people aren't necessarily affected directly by a school shooting half a world away, they can still sympathize with those that have lost.


Are you suggesting that alcohol is not habit forming and all those that abuse it choose to abuse it?

The reason these are happening more and more often, and why the parents don't seem to be the ones at blame. Google Dr.Spock.

I served in the military, air force, as a military police. Kids do these for reasons beyond anybodies comprehension. Most of it, is just from the lack of respect for a living person. Kids these days are educated, to be more or less ignorant to things like this. Society seems to be heading downhill, and quite honestly, let it. Just like with drug users, this world will hit an all time low (aka rock bottom) and somebody will, more than likely be able to step in and fix it. (also see, the great depression, the witch hunting, etc.)

I'm sure this kid, was giggled at for saying the wrong answers, or his crush didn't like him back, and so he decided to take his own revenge out on everybody else. With a lack of respect for human life, I can see it easily being a decision a kid would make. It's unfortunate, but sooner or later, it will come to an end. There is really no way to regulate things like this, without infringing on (us americans) civil rights.

Also, keep in mind, that, everything is much more severe to a younger person than one whose been through life. It's kinda like when you're young, you see this huge huge huge huge uhm...thing. We'll go with a playhouse. You grew up, and that playhouse seems smaller and smaller. Same principle, terrible analogy.

Did you actually stop and read anything that was said? The guy was 20 years old. He's suposed to be past being and acting like a kid. If he still was, due to a mental condition, he should not have been allowed to own a weapon.

I did, actually. However, I know 24 year olds who, have yet to really develop any sort of maturity -- It could entirely be that his parents spoonfed him, and going to college, he was somehow introduced to a life he was not prepared for. I always assume that, as, where I'm from -- I see it all the time.

Just because you may be older, does not, in any way, say that your maturity, and the way someone works is that of somebody else their age. Also, even with a mental condition, if he can act as a normal, functioning adult, then laws won't prohibit him from buying a weapon.

I've never been impressed by our biology.

And let's face it. By the kind of sympathy you're mentioning, you know, understand and believe shootings like these are bad. You have some intellectual headspace reserved for the thought, "My, that's unfortunate." What more can you expect? Anything more is excess. You're not desensitized because you still think it's wrong. If you thought it was indifferent in terms of morals, then I might think you have a case but as it is you're complaining you don't feel genuine sadness for people you don't know and likely never will.


Of course not. But reading is habit forming. People who read often continue to read until they stop. They'll read five or six books back to back (I'm guessing numbers, I can knock that out in a week so I'm not sure what a more reasonable scale would be) and still be willing to read more. Then, if they don't have anything to read for a while, they fall out of the habit and can go years without picking up a book.

But alcoholism (or any kind of addiction) isn't a sickness. It's a choice. It requires you to take some action to perpetuate it - for alcoholics, they have to go out and get alcohol and then imbibe the alcohol. I'm not saying that addicts don't have a number and range of things that compel them to continue their behaviour but they do not have a sickness.


Last time I checked, violent crime was down with young people.

If shootings are more frequent, perhaps they shouldn't get to be celebrities for having one.


And again, we come up with a problem that is made worse by civil rights.

I still don't get how they can be so valued. They're just troublesome. My country has fewer liberties than the United States - our speech is much more limited - and it doesn't really impact us. Oh, sure, crazy racists aren't allowed on television because we don't allow hate speech but I can see how having nearly no limits on peoples' civil liberties is a good idea.

Wait a minute...

You're right. However, because of our standards on patient privacy rights-- its hard to obtain any sufficient mental status on a patient. There are some with instabilities that can fake not having them at all. So, its difficult to really discern who is "crazy" and who isn't.



You're right in saying that age doesn't necessarily equal a persons maturity level. However, I don't think that we should rule out that he was old enough not to know better. My thing is that the parents should have seen or sensed something. Be a little more intituive with the child.

Something people need to understand, the amount of firearms illegally owned in Finland is considered much higher then the legally owned ones, according to a Swiss research group. Yes, this man had a firearm license, but removing it would probably had him with an illegally owned firearm, committing the same crime.

Amen to you, Masa. Amen to you!

I don't really think anybody was aruging this point, or didn't think this was still an issue. However, it's undoubtedly true.

Solution: Give everyone over the age of 18 on the planet a handgun.

There will always be illegal firearms. Taking away guns just makes it that much easier to kill. Sure, the government wont be able to intimidate that easily, but I'm fine with that.

Scenario 1: Guy goes crazy, pulls out a gun, shoots two people, then gets shot.
Scenario 2: Guy tries to rob bank, shoots his gun into the air, then gets shot.
Scenario 3: Everyone on earth goes crazy, lines are drawn, half of the human race is wiped out, more living space, and world hunger alleviated as cannibalism sets in.

It is a point that still needs to be made.

The Bubonic plague works a lot better.

In any case, its not such as having or not having gun control laws-- its knowing or not knowing when someone looks to be a little off-their-rocker.

This is why I am glad my dad was frank with me. He told me the first time I said 'That's not fair!' that life isn't fair, fairness can't exist. When I was six and asked where babies came from he told me through sex. When I asked him to clarify he gave me a dictionary. I asked my dad why people died he said he didn't know, but it probably had to do with the fact that if we didn't there would be no room left on the planet. I asked what he believed and he said in god and that when I got old enough to question this he would gladly debate the topic with me. We have, many times.



Again, dad quote concerning the criminal friends of his youth, 'I grew up, they grew older.'

I'm going to be honest, your father sounds like a very good one. Consider yourself lucky, most parents don't know how to be good parents. I hope I'll be able to be as honest with my child (if I ever have one) as your father was with you.

Are we ignoring the fact that a large number of shooting related injuries are accidents in homes with guns? Or do you actually think that this would solve anything?

The majority of people wouldn't shoot somebody whether they had a gun or not. Most people aren't even willing to punch people. Proliferation of weapons will not lower violence. It will make violence a more acceptable alternative. It will make carrying a gun necessary and criminals will be able to carry them openly because they're legal. Crimes of passion will end in death much more frequently - who hasn't wanted to kill someone in a blind rage before?

This kind of argument is like saying that there are always going to be thieves so stealing should be legal. The entire purpose of government is to restrict dangerous and harmful behaviour as much as they're able. Guns aren't worse than any other weapon in principle, except they're a lot easier to make fatal accidents with.

This is unique, but I 100 % agree with Verbose

My issue here isn't to do with gun control and more to do with the poor quality of listing criminal behaviour as a valid reason for legalizing something.

If it was an acceptable line of reasoning, there'd be no law at all.

Not quite, what you've just said is equal to the logic that people will be smoking hemp anyways so one should make it legal.

I'm wanting to legalize the tool, not the act. Its like legalizing a mace, not the act of crushing someone's skull.



Indeed, and they wont carry them. They'll have the option to, but its ultimately their choice. If you allow the common citizen the right to carry said weapon, you are ultimately legalizing the chance to defend themselves.



And the reduction of them has been proven to increase violence. Indeed, other countries may not have these problems, but in the US every city that outlawed firearms as seen a drastic increase of violent acts.



Yes, but unless their presence is felt everywhere, in every house, in every classroom, then relying on the government will be like relying on UPS to transport a critically wounded individual from their house in Wisconsin to a hospital in Japan.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is, until we reach your ideal world of Fascism, legalizing said weapon is the only chance you can reduce violent crimes and ultimately the loss of human lives.

No it's not.

No drug use, in and of itself, is necessarily dangerous to anybody other than the person using it (and, realistically, any dependents around). Realistically, it shouldn't be a crime. Weapons, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. It's not like that mace is or feasibly could be used for a non-criminal end.


But it won't be their choice. It will be mandatory.

Let's play this out a little. Guns are - newly - legal to have in public. I'm assuming we're not being silly enough to think there's going to be any worthwhile registration system here, especially given how widespread guns already are in your country. Every criminal has them, a large number of non-criminals and every immature idiot who thinks it's cool to have a gun on him.

Somebody gets shot. The chances of finding the specific gun that did it just went from slim to practically nil. Warning shots - like at the beginning of robberies - are going to become killing shots because consequences don't deter criminals. Every drug addict having a trip is suddenly very resistant to the police. It is very likely that guns will be on hand during emotional break-ups. Perhaps most importantly, the police will no longer be able to rely on non-lethal means of restraining people because an attempt to tazer somebody could very likely end in being shot at.

These are not the ingredients of long-term lowering of violence.


Are there good studies indicating this? Because if it's true, it seems like it would be a cultural issue rather than a simple causal relationship. A lot of Americans are willing to shoot people to keep their right to have a gun (when it's still not really legal for them to shoot people).


Exactly. If we let everybody steal, if they get their stuff stolen they can steal it right back!

It's not like human beings are prone to cycles of destructive behaviour. I've never heard of families starting a long feud over very little. And besides, it never hurts to hurry escalation along.

Intersting, but i think it be better to make every bullet extremly expensive... what am i talkin about??
ppl will make their own bullets though?... sure.. if their desperate and even then.. its to much work for most to even want to..
Although its unrealistic.. its a funny concept..

Watch this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE


you'll know what i mean...

Oooh! New crime ring! The mafias and cartels goes from drug dealers to weapon dealers! Drug use decreases due to the fact no one is really selling it much anymore.

I think a blunt mace would make a rather efficient demolition tool, especially for drywall.


I'll admit, in the scenario I am about to bring to light, times have changed and therefore are most likely not relevant. Back when the Mafia was the big thing, the crime families were very careful about who they shot. If they shot an innocent bystander, the entire city had weapons, and the family would be wiped out due to civilian militias.

Bank robberies were infrequent if ever perpetrated for the simple fact that everyone and their mothers had guns in the bank. A criminal isn't entirely a mindless creature. A crime usually isn't committed unless they think they can get away from it relatively unscathed. Sure, severity of their cases definitely contribute to how far they're willing to go, but almost certain suicide isn't an acceptable outcome.

In a sense, authority figures would almost become obsolete (though not unnecessary, you've got to give the pacifists some sort of security blanket.)

I'd have to look it up to confirm, but I remember reading somewhere that in one city, firearms were made illegal and crime rates went up somewhere around 20%. In another city, not only were firearms legal, so was concealing a weapon, and it had the opposite effect, lowering the crime rates.

I think the city where firearms were illegalized was Detroit... not entirely certain though.

Nah, that's an endless circle, easier to shoot the guy who stole your stuff THEN steal it back. Best to kill the family too just to make sure that circle has stopped.

Escalation is good, it brings anarchy which then allows major governmental changes. Its probably the only efficient way to switch from a democracy to a possible fascist state.

No, the Mafia had rules. Same as organised crime in Australia (although it doesn't really resemble the Mafia). It's a business. It's very Roman, really. Patrons and clients.

Organised crime is an industry. When the industry is strong, it swallows up small business (independent crime) and functions smoothly. Fewer people need to get hurt because hurting people is bad for business. They offer protection, extortion, money laundering. It's a proper industry. They had pride in their work.

They didn't fear all the civilians. If they did, why would the civilians ever utilize the services of the industry?


How long term, though?

In the short term there would be spikes. Happens whenever you change a major law - see prohibitions for examples. It always mellows out to about the same level though. Crime goes up by population density.


That's unacceptable. It proposes the sole thing I consider immoral - encouraging disorder. It's making slaves for freedom.

And worse, at the end of the day, everybody has weapons because there was a total breakdown of social order in living memory. You've said it yourself, it negates the effect of police. I simply do not believe that human beings have the good sense to believe that having a gun is necessary, that using the gun is acceptable and that the police are ineffective without constantly reverting to anarchy. What point is there in obeying the law when nobody can be forced to obey?

Well, that means that everyone who has a fire arm in the illegal city is breaking the law, so yeah. That statistic makes sense.

The whole basic claim is one I'm skeptical of. Lots of criminals in my country have guns but very few law-abiding citizens have them (in the city, they're more common in the country). They're not impossible to legally get here, it's just a tedious process.

We have very few shooting related incidents even accounting for our lower population and density. We live in a society where the criminals do have guns and the innocent don't and we have less shooting related violence. At the very least, this makes the basic premise behind arguing for laxer gun control questionable. It could be that people who say it's necessary are simply wrong in an empirical sense.

Or it could be that we here in the state are a country of bigots and racist where everyone hates everyone (whether they say so or not.).

No, we're bigots and racists too.

If it's a cultural difference, it's not that.

Although many wont care, guns arent the only problems... grenades are too..

MORELIA, Mexico (AP) — Assailants threw two grenades into a huge crowd of Independence Day revelers, killing seven and injuring more than 100 in a brazen attack that escalates the war between Mexico's army and drug gangs.

That's partly why I'm opposed to weapons being legal. It's the same rationale as why euthanasia is usually illegal.

Whenever you try to draw a line that includes some and excludes others, it's all too easy to slide the line along in either direction. Absolutes are harder to move.

That's what I don't know. I haven't been able to find the site as of yet. It is quite possible that it was all false information.

A disorganized mass seems like it would be closer to putty than an organized front. The anarchy wouldn't have to last long. You incite the anarchy, then swoop in with a promise of peace and order. Morality chains ambition, and it doesn't take a lot to make a major goal unobtainable.

Hunting seems to be a big thing in this country. Just about every male member in my extended family (uncles, cousins, etc.) own on average 3 guns of varying sizes, ranging from handguns to shotguns. Each of them are model citizens, many of which actually work for the state.

I do hope the fad continues with these emo kids. The norm will have gone from "gangsta" kill other people to "emo" kill myself.

Epic Lol

However, your font/style, plus avatar annoy the hell out of me...

Heheh, my avatar was chosen back when there was some RP going on where I played the emperor of catkind. I liked the picture, so I kept it. I'm not sure where the armor came from, but the cat is "serious cat"... oh, and just so you know, serious cat is serious.

I dont know how to break this to you.. but thats a rodent...

>.> er and i figured its ur sig's color that annoys me.. orange use to be a admins color.. that may be why

http://www.voshy.com/pictures/upload/voshy_3wheqson.jpg

serious cat fails at being a rodent.

cute cat.. but ur avys a rat.. the neck, facial fetures and even whiskers make me think u have a rat as ur avy.. its okay i wont tell.

Just makes the fact that it is the emperor of catkind that much funnier to me.

great.. but its still annoying.. to.. shinny

It's only putty when you can force it into shape. Giving everyone guns makes that considerably more difficult.


Yeah, we have a similar thing with people who live in the country here. It's less about hunting and more about killing kangaroos to keep them off farms but guns being prolific in the lowest density areas isn't a problem. It's when they're available in the high density areas. The more people you pile in close together the more crime you get.


Warhammer 40k. It's cropped from an image of the Emperor of Man.

Does it? Makes it easier in my opinion. Since lower population means less chaos.



Exactly why giving them all guns is the easy way to ensure that order arises after a while.

Please. In this hypothetical, the survivors are the ones who have been willing and probably have killed people to protect them and theirs in the chaos. They will not buckle down to an authority. They would need to be beaten into submission, except we're in a situation of anarchy so there are almost no internal methods of repairing this.