School shooting in Finland

[Fell]

And this is why he chose a 22. pistol?

He chose the .22 because it was the only weapon his weapon's licence allowed him to purchase.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are in denial that you simply have an emotional problem with them, and your statements reflect this.

Does that mean you argue that the evidence shows that people should own guns?

I can't help the fact they are phallic and potentially deadly, Claus.

No, not potentially. They are deadly, period.

The rate these sensationalized incidents occur are astonishingly low. You can't prevent them as they are motivated for cultural and psychological reasons. Take a look..

Answer the question: Who has gone on a rampage, killing people with private aircrafts, tasers, or sports cars?

Ratio to rounds fired to injuries or deaths typically are hundreds to say, 10 or 15 people. All autopistols are designed for defense at a standoff distance against typically one or two assailants. It is very difficult to reliably drop anyone with one (by drop I mean prevent them from retaliating).

And yet, the death toll from the school shootings are incredibly high.

Listen carefully:

- Dangerous products exist with legitimate purposes.

Of course. What is the purpose of a gun?

- I'm sure what Woodstock in 1969 stood for was amazing but you've got responsibilities as someone more realistic now.

- The fact a type is emotionally upsetting to you due to phallic characteristics is out of my control.

- This will stay that way because the world doesn't revolve around you.

- This will also stay that way because the world doesn't revolve around Islam.

- Therapists also exist.

What on Earth are you talking about?? Woodstock? Islam? Phallic characteristics?

Sure, because I want to. Furthermore there is no rational reason to prevent a civilian from owning a pistol or rifle for security or recreation.

So you do think it is the skeptical conclusion? That civilians should be able to own a gun?

Millions do, an overwhelmingly vast proportion for legitimate purposes. I live in a country where this fact is recognized.

Now can you explain why you cannot handle this?

Because your "want to" seriously endangers not just my life, but also everyone elses.

Why should anyone trust you - Philip - with a gun?

My point was pistols aren't remotely ideal methods of 'spree killing' with impunity, yet these have been used in all incidents to date. A trained person can kill or injure upwards of fifty people with a Kalashnikov rifle in a minute - same with a sword, worse can be done by stealing a large vehicle and crashing through a schoolyard. What's the difference? Firearms generate irrational controversy over their "power" by people who don't know better.

But we are not talking about ideal methods, nor are we talking about trained persons.

We are talking about young kids being able to outlive their anger by shooting a lot of people in a very short time. That's hardly an "irrational controversy".

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost

 

[SirPhilip]

Answer the question: Who has gone on a rampage, killing people with private aircrafts, tasers, or sports cars?

Pistols, it's irrelevant however.

And yet, the death toll from the school shootings are incredibly high.

They are incredibly low. The assailants are largely belligerent and clumsy.

That civilians should be able to own a gun?

They can for sane reasons. Asking a cascade of meaningless, braindead questions because you can't stand them isn't getting you anywhere.

Because your "want to" seriously endangers not just my life, but also everyone elses.

Have you considered talking to a psychologist about this phobia?

 

[SirPhilip]

He chose the .22 because it was the only weapon his weapon's licence allowed him to purchase.

The objective is largely attention, I'm rather surprised he chose to go out with a bang using a 22. pistol though.

 

[CFLarsen]

Pistols, it's irrelevant however.

No, it is very relevant. You brought it up, so answer the question:

Who has gone on a rampage, killing people with private aircrafts, tasers, or sports cars?

They are incredibly low. The assailants are largely belligerent and clumsy.

"Incredibly low"? You wouldn't call them "massacres", then?

They can for sane reasons.

Do you think it is the skeptical conclusion - that civilians should be able to own a gun?

Asking a cascade of meaningless, braindead questions because you can't stand them isn't getting you anywhere.

Have you considered talking to a psychologist about this phobia?

You think it is a phobia to argue against guns?

What is the purpose of a gun?

Why should anyone trust you - Philip - with a gun?

 

[Big Les]

My point was pistols aren't remotely ideal methods of 'spree killing' with impunity, yet these have been used in all incidents to date.

I agree with you fact is, as you say, these loons tend to use them regardless, and they are easily "good enough" to cause serious injury, death, and most importantly, terrorise the victims, those in the area, and anyone that hears about it. Nutjobs prefer handguns, bottom line. Whether a country chooses to legislate against them is up to it, and its people. My country decided to do just that after Hungerford and Dunblane, and we haven't had a spree killing in more than ten years now. Does that mean I agree with gun control? No, I don't. A hell of a lot of it is irrational as all hell. But I understand attempts to limit opportunities for spree-killers, and thus far, the government has been vindicated. No-one's sawn off a shotgun, lifted a sword, constructed a suicide belt, or whatever else, and tried to kill lots of people and themselves due to personal psychological problems. I don't know why, but they haven't. So whilst I disagree with the blanket ban, I can see that it has had one potential upside.

A trained person can kill or injure upwards of fifty people with a Kalashnikov rifle in a minute - same with a sword, worse can be done by stealing a large vehicle and crashing through a schoolyard. What's the difference?

The difference is that spree killings aren't done this way. Do you accept that? As I say, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly change my mind.

Firearms generate irrational controversy over their "power" by people who don't know better.

I know. Trust me, I know. Handguns in the UK were taken away on this basis - they had no evidence that spree killings might be reduced in frequency or eliminated. They did it because of public horror at multiple child deaths through firearms. People here would think that I was strange for being interested in guns, if I wasn't able to tell them that I work with them for historical reasons.

Gun legislation in general is about emotion and irrationality, but also about choosing to sacrifice individual freedom for reduced deaths. The only deaths you can say might be reduced by such laws are accidents, and killings like this (even of individuals). Without sounding unduly callous, I would be prepared to accept accidental deaths and even the occasional spree-killing, for the right to own guns. That's just me, and I'm not entirely comfortable with feeling that way - any death is deeply regrettable. But again, it's all about balancing the liberties of the many with the threat to the few. At the end of the day, if the majority are against non-essential guns, rationally or not, they will get banned. It's a price of democracy I'm afraid. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[This Guy]

Sad story. My thoughts go out to the families and friends of those killed, as well as the school mates that have to live with this memory.

 

[Big Les]

The objective is largely attention, I'm rather surprised he chose to go out with a bang using a 22. pistol though.

You and I both consider the relative merits of pistol calibres. He didn't. You (not I) have a choice of those calibres thanks to your gun laws. He didn't.

He knew he'd be able to kill a few people and wound many others, all in a noisy, dramatic way. Even leaving aside the the psychological stuff I've already speculated upon. In purely practical terms, the chances of him being stopped by a brave intervention would be far higher with a melee weapon (you say "a trained person etc etc" but he wasn't trained) and how is he supposed to use a vehicle in confined areas or indoors? Even outside people could evade him, and as soon as the police arrived, he'd be shot dead possibly without having taken anyone with him. I say again, you can debate me on these practical "what's best" matters, but the fact is that these people want to use guns in these crimes, handguns especially.

You either choose to restrict ownership, or you don't. You might save a few lives by depriving lots of people of their legal enjoyment (40000 shooters in the UK was apparently a small price to save what, a dozen or so lives over ten years if you assume one killing in that period?). Of course they didn't know that, but as long as disturbed killers remain dormant and unable to act out, they have set a precedent to other countries with small shooting communities. The situation in the US is very different - firearms are part of the culture, and much more widely distributed amongst many, many shooters. It's just not practical to do what my government did.

 

[SirPhilip]

No, it is very relevant. You brought it up, so answer the question: Who has gone on a rampage, killing people with private aircrafts, tasers, or sports cars?

Another meaningless question, but I'll go along. Clearly the point, if you actually read, was lethality is relative, another that the choice is very poor. Consider the latest where he used a 22. pistol.

"Incredibly low"? You wouldn't call them "massacres", then?

They didn't rush him - they stood there. It's not particularly difficult to tag 20 people in that situation.

Do you think it is the skeptical conclusion - that civilians should be able to own a gun?

Civilians can already own guns for rational reasons. You have a problem with this, a psychological one, and invent meaningless reasons to convince yourself otherwise.

You think it is a phobia to argue against guns?

Practical and recreational use by civilians overwhelmingly outweigh their criminal use. More than 300 million exist, a fraction of 1% are used in crimes, outweighed further by their security use. Make sense and I'll agree with you. So far, I have - and I don't think I'm alone - no idea what premise you conclude they should not be owned by civilians.

That clear enough?

Why should anyone trust you - Philip - with a gun?

Your obsession with them enabling someone to become godlike is your imagination. It is more perilous to rush someone with a tanto than a pistol.

 

[SirPhilip]

In purely practical terms, the chances of him being stopped by a brave intervention would be far higher with a melee weapon (you say "a trained person etc etc" but he wasn't trained) and how is he supposed to use a vehicle in confined areas or indoors?

Indeed he wasn't, and could have been simply stopped if rushed by several people. I assume his intention wasn't specifically school, but the populace in general, considering the randomness.

...fact is that these people want to use guns in these crimes, handguns especially.

Quite true - this is why CCW holders (law-abiding citizens with proper training and carry permit) should be allowed to enter school grounds with their sidearms. This is the only practical way to 'prevent' such incidences, along with security tactics.

You either choose to restrict ownership, or you don't. You might save a few lives by depriving lots of people of their legal enjoyment (40000 shooters in the UK was apparently a small price to save what, a dozen or so lives over ten years if you assume one killing in that period?).

This assumes if he can't legally he'll give up, and this makes no sense. Guns can be purchased the same way narcotics can in the U.S and U.K.

Of course they didn't know that, but as long as disturbed killers remain dormant and unable to act out, they have set a precedent to other countries with small shooting communities.

It's cultural and psychological. Consider the problem of radical Islam.

It's just not practical to do what my government did.

What your government did was make legal purchase difficult - It didn't deter, in the least it happening again. That can't happen here because too many people own firearms and understand what nonsense those measures are.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I always wonder if those 'against' guns (hey, that's me to some extent, but not to a completely wacko extent, like against them no matter what) would object to someone, say one of their friends or a stranger, using a gun in self defense to shoot someone trying to take their life?

Or would they be upset that a gun was even used?

 

[SirPhilip]

Or would they be upset that a gun was even used?

The authorities, at least in the U.S are not obligated to protect you. That's appropriately your job. It's one of the impressive cultural foundations about America. Ask any police officer if they'd like to see upstanding citizens with no criminal records, training and CCW permits, prohibited from not only safeguarding the community, but protecting themselves and families as well - for no other reason because a group of imbeciles with psychological hangups can't cope and would rather dictate society. The Age Of Aquarius isn't here yet, so don't pretend it's the same 'argument' as alcohol and tobacco.

 

[CFLarsen]

Another meaningless question, but I'll go along. Clearly the point, if you actually read, was lethality is relative, another that the choice is very poor. Consider the latest where he used a 22. pistol.

You brought up private aircraft, tasers, and sports cars.

If you think it is meaningless, don't bring it up.

They didn't rush him - they stood there. It's not particularly difficult to tag 20 people in that situation.

What is that supposed to mean? That they were at fault? That they deserved getting killed?

Yeah, you can say "kill". It isn't a schoolyard game of "tag", we are talking about real people getting killed.

Would you call them "massacres", yes or no?

Civilians can already own guns for rational reasons. You have a problem with this, a psychological one, and invent meaningless reasons to convince yourself otherwise.

Do you think it is the skeptical conclusion - that civilians should be able to own a gun?

Practical and recreational use by civilians overwhelmingly outweigh their criminal use. More than 300 million exist, a fraction of 1% are used in crimes, outweighed further by their security use. Make sense and I'll agree with you. So far, I have - and I don't think I'm alone - no idea what premise you conclude they should not be owned by civilians.

That clear enough?

Whether the use of guns outweigh their criminal use is a political decision. You cannot possibly argue that it is a question of rationality.

Your obsession with them enabling someone to become godlike is your imagination. It is more perilous to rush someone with a tanto than a pistol.

Why should anyone trust you - Philip - with a gun?

 

[Lonewulf]

What is that supposed to mean? That they were at fault? That they deserved getting killed?

That's a pretty deranged strawman you invented there. Please explain where he said that they "deserved" to be killed?

Why should anyone trust you - Philip - with a gun?

So far he's seemed rational and very capable of making good decisions. I'd trust him with a gun. In fact, I'd trust a significant amount of humanity with firearms.

You don't. I understand that you don't. But don't act like your own position is the only "rational" one.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a pretty deranged strawman you invented there. Please explain where he said that they "deserved" to be killed?

I asked if that was what he meant.

Here's the difference between a claim and a question.

Please learn the difference.

So far he's seemed rational and very capable of making good decisions. I'd trust him with a gun. In fact, I'd trust a significant amount of humanity with firearms.

You don't. I understand that you don't. But don't act like your own position is the only "rational" one.

Do you think there is a difference between posting on a forum, and how you act in situations under high pressure?

 

[zooterkin]

I'm surprised you have time to reply here now. You are now aware that there may be a teen out there who has posted a video stating their intent to commit an atrocity. If you're not spending your time scanning these, and alerting the authorities, how can you take on the responsibility for what might happen?

 

[Lonewulf]

I asked if that was what he meant.

Here's the difference between a claim and a question.

Please learn the difference.

I see.

Do you still beat your wife? When was the last time you raped a child? Why are you okay with pedophiles doing what they want?

What? It's just a question.

Do you think there is a difference between posting on a forum, and how you act in situations under high pressure?

Please prove that he would not act well in a situation under pressure please.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm surprised you have time to reply here now. You are now aware that there may be a teen out there who has posted a video stating their intent to commit an atrocity. If you're not spending your time scanning these, and alerting the authorities, how can you take on the responsibility for what might happen?

Changing the goalposts. I haven't seen any threats.

There are thousands of other videos on YouTube with a specific school name, a description of a violent event and when it would happen?

Can you find a similar video on YouTube? One where a school is named, a threat of a massacre and a time it will happen?

Think there are reasons why you can't?

How can you take on that kind of responsibility of maybe do something, if you saw a direct, explicit threat to a school near you?

I see.

Do you still beat your wife? When was the last time you raped a child? Why are you okay with pedophiles doing what they want?

What? It's just a question.

I see you learned nothing.

Please prove that he would not act well in a situation under pressure please.

That is solely up to him to prove.

 

[zooterkin]

Please show where anyone says they would not report a school shooting that is in progress.