Yes, but then, how far do you want to take it?
I don't want to take it anywhere. Selfishly, I would like to be able to own handguns. Hell, I'd like to be able to own automatic weapons. But I recognise that not everybody is as responsible as I would hope I would be with such toys. And they
would be toys, and therefore banning them is removing a privilege, not a right - there's no need whatever (in the UK at least) to own either type of weapon.
Of course you don't take it as far as banning useful weapons like hunting rifles, shotguns etc. But you make damn sure that your vetting procedures are Sierra Hotel.
I'm not convinced that a complete ban on just handguns would have stopped an individual like this. He seems to have been very motivated, to the point where he went through all the effort of getting a legal firearm. He seemed committed to carry out his plan regardless of how hard or easy it was to obtain a gun. According to the news he wanted a 9mm pistol but was refused because Finnish law requires the first weapon to be .22 caliber, so that's what he used.
That's exactly it - he
wanted the sort of glamourous, self-esteem inflating, compact yet destructive, attractive-looking self-loading pistol that is symbolic of so much in today's society.
He could have accomplished the same thing with a winter sports rifle (or even a hunting weapon), which tend to be easily available in these regions. I guess there may not be the same action movie appeal, but they are just as effective and generally hold 5+1 cartridges. Half of his pistol, but a non issue with a bag full of loaded magazines.
You're thinking like a rational person. Long rifles
do get used in spree killings, but where the individual shooter prefers to stand off at a range/elevation. Either because they wish to try and escape (most likely) or because their personality makes them leary of going toe-to-toe with their victims. They
don't get used in close-quarters, probably for quite practical reasons - they are long, heavy, and unwieldy. They hold less ammunition, and advertise the fact via their configuration. Should anyone decide to play hero, it's far easier for them to both close you down, and to grab the barrel to prevent you firing at them. They also leave no free hands to manipulate people, obstructions, and objects, and are slower and more awkward to reload. So the sense of security will be much less, despite the obvious "display" aspect of having a big weapon in your hands.
Michael Ryan, the Hungerford killer, used both 9mm pistols and a semi-auto AK assault rifle. Shorter barrelled rifles and carbines do approximate the close-quarters practicality and psychological desirability of a military calibre handgun (if not exceed it), but are harder to get, harder to shoot accurately indoors, louder, and harder to conceal than pistols.
According to the news he was carrying hundreds of cartridges. Why so few people were killed is anyone's guess. Would things have been different with a more powerful gun? I don't know.
Absolutely. The .22 is a notoriously poor performer in terms of terminal ballistics. I suspect that the fatal casualties were those hit multiple times by this freak. He apparently had little clue as to the low power of the weapon because he tried to kill himself with it - the chance of either a protracted and painful death or even permanent but non-fatal brain damage was pretty high(which makes me think he saw it as this symbolic instant-death-dealer rather than a weapon intended for shooting targets or small game). People survive being shot by these things all the time. Famously President Reagan didn't even notice he'd been hit after an assassination attempt.
Assuming all my theorising reflects realirt, each time you ban a firearm type, you remove one especially lethal tool from a spree-killers arsenal. It just depends on, as a society, how much compromise you are prepared to make versus how much benefit gun ownership brings individuals and society at large. When you start to seriously impinge upon people's needs and leisure activities, you have to look at cost/benefit and, as we do with knives, cars, tall buildings etc, accept a level of risk in order that those of us fortunate enough not to be killed by any such thing, can still lead full and rewarding lives.
Incidentally, it appears he also tried to set the school on fire.
So? Arson is a very common way of getting back at people and organisations that individuals perceive have wronged them. It's also far, far less lethal as a method of murder, because of the safety measures we have to deal with accidental fires. There is also no way to effectively legislate against fuels, accelerants, and ignition sources. Guns on the other hand, are quite straightforward to restrict (public opinion is all you need on your side).
I should add that ideally, problems like this would be addressed by society changing to limit the development of psychologies like this. But realistically, that's just not feasible. If as a society you are prepared to accept the occasional spate of murders like this, then that's your collective choice. I think the argument against guns used in conventional crime and crimes of passion (even planned ones) is much weaker by the way - the former will get their guns illegally for the most part, and the latter will use whatever's available. Guns make those crimes somewhat more lethal of course, but the results are far more limited (1-a handful of involved people). Some societies will nevertheless prefer to eliminate legal guns from the equation entirely. I think that's way over the top.
). For the same reason they don't seem to risk obtaining illegal firearms. Rather they use it as a prop for their fantasies after they develop their psychological problems. Either way it's there for them to feed those fantasies and in acting out, to make it easier for them to actually go out and do it for real.