Friday, February 19, 2010

Common Sense in Finland

The Associated Press reports on the proposed gun ban in Finland.

A Finnish government commission on Wednesday proposed a ban on semiautomatic handguns after two school shootings in recent years left 20 people dead.

The ban, which needs parliamentary approval, would sharply reduce the number of legal weapons in a country that ranks among the world's top five in civilian gun ownership.

"We've had a very weapon-friendly culture," commission chairman Pekka Sauri said. "In carrying out the proposals we would, of course, pay compensation to anyone who turns in weapons."

The Nordic nation of 5.3 million has 650,000 licensed gun owners. Of some 250,000 handguns, more than 200,000 are semiautomatic, according to Sauri.

The recommendation came in a report on an attack in September 2008, when a 22-year-old gunman killed nine fellow students and a teacher before shooting himself at a vocational high school in Kauhajoki, western Finland.

Less than a year earlier, a teenage student fatally shot eight people and himself at Jokela High School in Tuusula, near the capital, Helsinki.


We've discussed some of the Finnish gun violence here and here. What's your opinion? Is the suggestion to ban handguns a ridiculous and emotional response to these types of incidents? Are the people in Finland who want this deluded by their fear of inanimate objects?

I don't think so. In a small country, perhaps what would be untenable in the United States as a solution might be exactly what they need. In spite of all the pro-gun claims to the contrary, gun availability plays a significant role in the amount and the gravity of violence for the simple reason that the gun is the most efficient killing tool.

An interesting thing about the Finland situation is the pro-gun folks over there don't have the trumped-up justification their American counterparts have. There's no 2nd Amendment there.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. Good luck to Finland at stopping this idiocy. Should make the revolver manufacturers happy, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is why I oppose licensing and registration. Licensing and registration is essential to Finland's plan of confiscation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "What's your opinion? Is the suggestion to ban handguns a ridiculous and emotional response to these types of incidents?"

    Yes.

    "Are the people in Finland who want this deluded by their fear of inanimate objects?"

    Yes.

    "An interesting thing about the Finland situation is the pro-gun folks over there don't have the trumped-up justification their American counterparts have. There's no 2nd Amendment there."

    Trumped up? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Calling for a nationwide gun ban because of one incident is your idea of "common-sense?"

    Way to show your true colors MikeB!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mikeb: "Common Sense in Finland"

    So if someplace has gun licensing and registration but shooting crimes continue (surprise!) then gun bans will be "common sense"?

    Mikeb, you just made to case to gunowners (like AztecRed, for example) against gun licensing and registration.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't you love "Common Sense", FJ. That phrase has essentially been the gun banner's "get out of jail free" card. Whenever they can't explain how a certain gun law will reduce gun violence, they throw out "Common Sense".

    ReplyDelete
  7. FatWhiteMan says:

    Trumped up? Really?

    Yeah--that whole Bill of Rights thing is just right wing propaganda.

    You didn't know that?

    /s

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Trumped up" applies to the modern interpretation of the 2nd. The 3rd we just ignore since it's even more anachronistic than the 2nd. The rest are OK, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The 3rd is not ignored.

    Care to show where troops are quartered in homes FP?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ""Trumped up" applies to the modern interpretation of the 2nd. "

    Please explain how the modern interpretation differs from the original interpretation.

    Checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can certainly say that the 3rd A is anachronistic and perhaps you can say that the 3rd A is ignored.

    What you cannot say is that the 3rd A is not in force. If the govt ever tried to quarter troops in homes, that would be certainly be overturned on 3rd A grounds.

    Likewise, you can argue that the 2nd A is anachronistic, but no matter how anachronistic you claim it is, it remains in force until repealed. You can certainly try to repeal it for the reason of being anachronistic. I suspect that you know that there are many who will argue otherwise, and I also suspect that by now you have a good idea as to what the outcome of such an attempt would be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah the words of a bigot.

    MikeB claiming "let's just ignore the Constitutional Rights I don't think are important"

    Way to show your true colors MikeB.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How about if we put the word "militia" back into the modern interpretation of the 2nd? When you do that it makes no sense, due to the anachronistic nature of that 18th century entity called "a militia."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mikeb: How about if we put the word "militia" back into the modern interpretation of the 2nd? When you do that it makes no sense, due to the anachronistic nature of that 18th century entity called "a militia."

    For argument's sake, let's say "perhaps" to the above.

    Therefore we have the RKBA of the people, but maybe that's anachronistic as you say above.

    If so then what I wrote in my previous post on this subject (above) then comes into play.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When exactly was the word "militia" taken out?

    I don't recall the 2A being amended to have that word stricken, and the militia has always been composed of "the people"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikeb says:

    How about if we put the word "militia" back into the modern interpretation of the 2nd? When you do that it makes no sense, due to the anachronistic nature of that 18th century entity called "a militia."

    Ooh--can I play? Here's my attempt: in order to ensure freedom, the people must be able to form effective militias. This, in turn, means of course that they must not be hindered from arming themselves effectively.

    Obviously, elegance of language isn't one of my strengths. Someone better at that would have to put it in more formal terms.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MikeB, was the right to keep and bear arms contingent on being in an organized militia in the 18th century? Or did all the people have RKBA?

    -TS

    ReplyDelete
  18. TS, You know this stuff better than I do. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment in the beginning has nothing to do with today's society. The only ones who should ever mention the 2nd, are the true threepers and the most extreme libertarian-survivalists. Those guys, the real hard core ones, really believe they're gonna fight the government or a foreign invader. That's why they love Red Dawn so much.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mikeb says:

    The only ones who should ever mention the 2nd, are the true threepers and the most extreme libertarian-survivalists. Those guys, the real hard core ones, really believe they're gonna fight the government or a foreign invader. That's why they love Red Dawn so much.

    Actually, although I assume I'm to be categorized as one of "true threepers and the most extreme libertarian-survivalists," I thought Red Dawn was kinda silly, for the most part--fun enough for one viewing, but not something to be taken seriously.

    But, Mikeb, don't let reality get in the way of a sweeping generalization.

    ReplyDelete