School shooting in Finland

[Morrigan]

Not just me. Finland is today a country in shock, and struggling how to handle this.

Do you deny that this has shaken Finland?

Yes, I'm sure they are "struggling". I'm sure that Finns everywhere are requestioning their whole society and making grand changes, rather than just babbling about it in a media circus and around water-coolers. Finns everywhere fear going to school now, and will keep on having this fear until new laws are made, dammit! *hammers fist on table*

Or, maybe it'll be like here after the Polytechnique gunman attack, where people hold a small memorial every year or so just to appear to care, and resume their daily lives. Lots of talk, but ultimately we realise that not much can be done without sacrificing people's freedoms. It's not worth it. Sure, we *could* search every single individual who penetrates the school perimeter every day, and I'm sure gun shootings would stop. But it's not worth it. And so far, nobody has considered taking new measures to be worth it.

Sorry, but to compare this to 9/11 is laughable.

We can avoid a great deal of the consequences of a tsunami. After the 2004 tsunami, there were many initiatives on how to warn the public, especially in remote areas, so they could get away from the waves.

Yeah. Which is a far cry from PREVENTING it to happen. Anyway, it's another event that affected several millions of people, not a grandiose 9. Your comparison fails again.

A "bit"?

I really hope you are being sarcastic here, although I don't see how that helps your own argument.

If you are not, then I am truly sad for you. That you can so easily dismiss such a catastrophe is just...sad.

Of course I'm being sarcastic. 9/11 affected thousands, seriously impacted the economy and political international relationships - a far cry from "a bit" more impact. This school shooting is a tiny insignificant incident in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to enormous catastrophes like 9/11 and the 2004 tsunami.

How to avoid such incidents in the future, of course. What do you think legislation is about?

Stop being vague. What kind of laws are you suggesting? If you don't have any in mind, then why legislate anything? Legislation for legislation's sake is retarded.

A question of clarification is necessarily an implication, and therefore intellectual dishonesty?

No, it's not necessarily an implication. It becomes an implication when you *gasps* imply something while doing that. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a question, which implies you are beating your wife. By saying "What is that supposed to mean? That they were at fault? That they deserved getting killed?", you are effectively implying that he thinks they deserved to get killed. At least be honest about it.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

To pick a few.

Do you accept the evidence?

None of this is evidence that I'm lying. For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, the second link is a post you made about drug and firearm statistics, as if that had anything to do with it. Allow me to refresh your memory: I said that just about everyone understood you to mean that if you saw a man with a gun on a plane, regardless of whether or not he was an air marshall, you would kill him. You claimed this was a lie, and your "proofs" that I'm lying are a bunch of unrelated posts: in order, factoids about knives, drug and firearm stats, more firearm-related stats, your opinion about guns, a random quote from a debatable study about guns, an argument you had with SirPhilip, your opinion on the death penalty, and a comparison of the US with Denmark.

None of which have anything to do with how people interpreted your "If I see a man with a gun on a plane, I'll kill him" statement. Seriously, that was pathetic. Did you really think that bombarding me with links would somehow make you "win"? FAIL.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because.

Claus, reverting to a second childhood does not a Skeptic make.

DR

"Because" is a skeptical answer? I'll keep that in mind.

Yes, I'm sure they are "struggling". I'm sure that Finns everywhere are requestioning their whole society and making grand changes

Whoa. Who said anything about making grand changes?

, rather than just babbling about it in a media circus and around water-coolers. Finns everywhere fear going to school now, and will keep on having this fear until new laws are made, dammit! *hammers fist on table*

Or, maybe it'll be like here after the Polytechnique gunman attack, where people hold a small memorial every year or so just to appear to care, and resume their daily lives. Lots of talk, but ultimately we realise that not much can be done without sacrificing people's freedoms. It's not worth it. Sure, we *could* search every single individual who penetrates the school perimeter every day, and I'm sure gun shootings would stop. But it's not worth it. And so far, nobody has considered taking new measures to be worth it.

Sorry, but to compare this to 9/11 is laughable.

Funny you mention searching people who penetrates the school perimeter every day.

Should these precautions stop?

Yeah. Which is a far cry from PREVENTING it to happen. Anyway, it's another event that affected several millions of people, not a grandiose 9. Your comparison fails again.

OK, not millions of people. Not even 3,000 people from 9/11. But more than the number of victims from the school shootings.

Precisely where do you draw the line? How many dead people?

Of course I'm being sarcastic. 9/11 affected thousands, seriously impacted the economy and political international relationships - a far cry from "a bit" more impact. This school shooting is a tiny insignificant incident in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to enormous catastrophes like 9/11 and the 2004 tsunami.

Yet, if you look at how they impact the local societies, it scares the living daylights out of the kids, not to mention their parents. And for good reason: How can they send their kids to school, if they run a risk of being killed?

Stop being vague. What kind of laws are you suggesting? If you don't have any in mind, then why legislate anything? Legislation for legislation's sake is retarded.

And nobody is suggesting that.

One would be to remove the cause of these killings, namely the guns.

No, it's not necessarily an implication. It becomes an implication when you *gasps* imply something while doing that. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a question, which implies you are beating your wife. By saying "What is that supposed to mean? That they were at fault? That they deserved getting killed?", you are effectively implying that he thinks they deserved to get killed. At least be honest about it.

Nonsense. You can dismiss any question by claiming that it implies something you don't like.

None of this is evidence that I'm lying. For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, the second link is a post you made about drug and firearm statistics, as if that had anything to do with it. Allow me to refresh your memory: I said that just about everyone understood you to mean that if you saw a man with a gun on a plane, regardless of whether or not he was an air marshall, you would kill him. You claimed this was a lie, and your "proofs" that I'm lying are a bunch of unrelated posts: in order, factoids about knives, drug and firearm stats, more firearm-related stats, your opinion about guns, a random quote from a debatable study about guns, an argument you had with SirPhilip, your opinion on the death penalty, and a comparison of the US with Denmark.

So, that's what you were referring to. I thought you were referring to Lonewulf's claims. My bad.

None of which have anything to do with how people interpreted your "If I see a man with a gun on a plane, I'll kill him" statement. Seriously, that was pathetic. Did you really think that bombarding me with links would somehow make you "win"? FAIL.

Sorry, we've been down that path many times before. You close your eyes, if you like. You can shout "FAIL" all you like, it doesn't change reality.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Because" is a skeptical answer? I'll keep that in mind.

No, Claus, it is a sarcastic answer. The deliberately obtuse game isn't becoming on you.

Maybe if you had raised kids you'd have gotten it. Maybe not.

Anyhoo, have a lovely weekend. It's been a real slice.

DR

 

[Morrigan]

Whoa. Who said anything about making grand changes?

You're talking about a "shaken society" and the "need for legislation". Seems grand enough.

Funny you mention searching people who penetrates the school perimeter every day.

Should these precautions stop?

If finding guns on students is a daily occurrence in that school, maybe it's not too insane, but it's really putting a band-aid on a cancer. As for an isolated incident, yes, it's clearly an exagerated precaution.

OK, not millions of people. Not even 3,000 people from 9/11. But more than the number of victims from the school shootings.

Precisely where do you draw the line? How many dead people?

More than 9, that's for sure.

Yet, if you look at how they impact the local societies, it scares the living daylights out of the kids, not to mention their parents. And for good reason: How can they send their kids to school, if they run a risk of being killed?

Evidence? You interviewed every Finn individually?
As for the alleged "risk", that's a retarded claim. Statistically, they run a higher risk of getting hit by a bus than they do being shot by a gunman at school. The school shooting scenario is ridiculously less probable, it's just more sensationalising.

And nobody is suggesting that.

One would be to remove the cause of these killings, namely the guns.

Nonsense. You can dismiss any question by claiming that it implies something you don't like.

Only if it's a loaded question. Which yours was.

So, that's what you were referring to. I thought you were referring to Lonewulf's claims. My bad.

Sorry, we've been down that path many times before. You close your eyes, if you like. You can shout "FAIL" all you like, it doesn't change reality.

The reality that you're insane? Yeah, we know.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're talking about a "shaken society" and the "need for legislation". Seems grand enough.

That's your interpretation.

If finding guns on students is a daily occurrence in that school, maybe it's not too insane, but it's really putting a band-aid on a cancer. As for an isolated incident, yes, it's clearly an exagerated precaution.

You don't think that, because a school kid brings a gun to school, it won't happen again?

Even when you think of the copy-cats who follow in the footsteps of their heroes?

More than 9, that's for sure.

Name the exact number.

Evidence? You interviewed every Finn individually?

Why would I have to?

As for the alleged "risk", that's a retarded claim. Statistically, they run a higher risk of getting hit by a bus than they do being shot by a gunman at school. The school shooting scenario is ridiculously less probable, it's just more sensationalising.

The parents don't feel that way. Are you just going to override their justified worries with "Oh, your kid is more likely to be killed by a car, so you just have to live with your worries - worries that are retarded"?

Roll your eyes all you like. You asked for a solution, and you got it.

Only if it's a loaded question. Which yours was.

Nonsense.

 

[Big Les]

That's your interpretation.



You don't think that, because a school kid brings a gun to school, it won't happen again?

Even when you think of the copy-cats who follow in the footsteps of their heroes?

I acknowledge that it certainly could happen again. However, copycat incidents like this are pretty rare, no? School shootings are infrequent events in any given country, especially outside the gun-filled and high population US (sorry US). If it's balancing liberties (yes, even privileges like gun ownership) with likelihood of death, as we do with cars and other objects, it's not entirely out of left field to suggest that deaths are so infrequent and few that there's little justification for banning. As you know, I happen to think that banning legal guns of the type used in multiple killings isn't a bad idea, because I personally am uncomfortable with the idea of keeping them if there's any chance that banning will prevent or reduce these periodic deaths. In general though, I'm not in favour. Anti-gun measures (often including those I've mentioned) are made based upon emotion and sensationalism, not evidence (statistics, likely reduction in deaths and woundings vs number of people owning and their reasons for doing so).

The parents don't feel that way. Are you just going to override their justified worries with "Oh, your kid is more likely to be killed by a car, so you just have to live with your worries - worries that are retarded"?

Bingo. This is not a rational way to approach the problem, it's a fallacious appeal to emotion. Every bereaved parent feels this way, it's entirely natural. It's also why the media drag them in front of cameras and radio mikes to ask their hugely (and understandably) skewed opinions as to what ought to be done. These people are the last people to be informing policy - they're lost all objectivity. I'm not even comfortable with mass public opinion having a big influence upon governments, but this is what tends to happen. And if society decides they no longer wish people to own guns, then that's the way it has go. But I for one would wish to see a rational, reasoned argument behind the banning of anything. For example, I was far from comfortable with either the idea of hunting with hounds in the UK, or with its banning, because this was done on the basis of, on the whole, poorly informed public opinion and small but vocal pressure groups. Emotion alone is not a reason to legislate.

 

[gtc]

Neither hands nor cars are designed to kill at a distance. Guns are.

Irrelevant and wrong.

Wrong because not every gun is designed to kill humans (some are for show, some are for hunting etc).

Irrelevant because it is the effect that counts, not the intention.

 

[Morrigan]

That's your interpretation.
You don't think that, because a school kid brings a gun to school, it won't happen again?

Even when you think of the copy-cats who follow in the footsteps of their heroes?

It might happen again. It won't happen very often. It won't become an out-of-control plague. Don't worry, it's okay, you can send your kids to school. Make sure you tell them to look both sides before crossing the street, though.

Name the exact number.

I don't have one. Why do you care about an exact number? Stop being pedantic for the sake of it.

Why would I have to?

Because you claimed that Finns are scared to go to school. Clearly you interviewed them and asked them how they felt, since you know their minds and hearts so well. Certainly you aren't basing this on flimsy evidence like some quotes from one or two concerned parents in one or two newspaper, right.

The parents don't feel that way. Are you just going to override their justified worries with "Oh, your kid is more likely to be killed by a car, so you just have to live with your worries - worries that are retarded"?

Their worries are not justified. They worry because of a media circus, not because of a real persisting problem.

Roll your eyes all you like. You asked for a solution, and you got it.

You think making guns illegal will stop school shootings? That's your solution?

Nonsense.

I know you are, but what am I.

 

[CFLarsen]

I acknowledge that it certainly could happen again. However, copycat incidents like this are pretty rare, no?

Are they? Look at the copycats that sprung up right after Jokela. Look at where the Jokela shooter got his inspiration from. Look at where the Santana High School shooter got his inspiration from.

And so on.

School shootings are infrequent events in any given country, especially outside the gun-filled and high population US (sorry US). If it's balancing liberties (yes, even privileges like gun ownership) with likelihood of death, as we do with cars and other objects, it's not entirely out of left field to suggest that deaths are so infrequent and few that there's little justification for banning. As you know, I happen to think that banning legal guns of the type used in multiple killings isn't a bad idea, because I personally am uncomfortable with the idea of keeping them if there's any chance that banning will prevent or reduce these periodic deaths. In general though, I'm not in favour. Anti-gun measures (often including those I've mentioned) are made based upon emotion and sensationalism, not evidence (statistics, likely reduction in deaths and woundings vs number of people owning and their reasons for doing so).

Anti-gun measures are very much a case of covering the well after the child has drowned. It is simply a question of people deciding that the advantages of gun ownership - whatever they may be - do not outweigh the advantages of the opposite.

So what? There's no harm in getting wiser. There is, however, harm in sticking to old ideas, simply for the sake of sticking to old ideas. The world changes, and we must change with it.

Bingo. This is not a rational way to approach the problem, it's a fallacious appeal to emotion. Every bereaved parent feels this way, it's entirely natural. It's also why the media drag them in front of cameras and radio mikes to ask their hugely (and understandably) skewed opinions as to what ought to be done. These people are the last people to be informing policy - they're lost all objectivity. I'm not even comfortable with mass public opinion having a big influence upon governments, but this is what tends to happen. And if society decides they no longer wish people to own guns, then that's the way it has go. But I for one would wish to see a rational, reasoned argument behind the banning of anything. For example, I was far from comfortable with either the idea of hunting with hounds in the UK, or with its banning, because this was done on the basis of, on the whole, poorly informed public opinion and small but vocal pressure groups. Emotion alone is not a reason to legislate.

Nobody is saying that emotion alone should be a reason to legislate. What I am seeing is unfortunately a rejection of even entertaining the notion that people have been hurt, and that something must be done to stop it.

Irrelevant and wrong.

Wrong because not every gun is designed to kill humans (some are for show, some are for hunting etc).

Irrelevant because it is the effect that counts, not the intention.

Then, we are back to personal ownership of nukes.

Come up with a new argument that hasn't been driving into the ground again and again.

It might happen again. It won't happen very often. It won't become an out-of-control plague. Don't worry, it's okay, you can send your kids to school. Make sure you tell them to look both sides before crossing the street, though.

How can you tell parents that?

I don't have one. Why do you care about an exact number? Stop being pedantic for the sake of it.

Then, you are a hypocrite. You want to draw a line somewhere above the number of killed children and below the number of killed on 9/11, but you are not able to say exactly where.

You are simply making it up as you go. Your argument is arbitrary.

Because you claimed that Finns are scared to go to school. Clearly you interviewed them and asked them how they felt, since you know their minds and hearts so well. Certainly you aren't basing this on flimsy evidence like some quotes from one or two concerned parents in one or two newspaper, right.

No, I am also basing it on the widespread concern and shock that hit Finland.

Are you going to move the goalposts once again, and simply brush that aside as well?

Their worries are not justified. They worry because of a media circus, not because of a real persisting problem.

You are not in a position where you can order parents not to worry about their children. Fortunately, you are also not in a position to dictate how they will use their influence to change things.

You think making guns illegal will stop school shootings? That's your solution?

So far, we haven't had any in Denmark.

 

[Morrigan]

How can you tell parents that?

Well, I'd say I'd open my mouth and use the body parts we call a "tongue" and "lips", but then it'd sound dirty.

Then, you are a hypocrite. You want to draw a line somewhere above the number of killed children and below the number of killed on 9/11, but you are not able to say exactly where.

You are simply making it up as you go. Your argument is arbitrary.

It's called a case-by-case basis, genius. It's not arbitrary, it's common sense.
What about your line: one dead? Zero?

No, I am also basing it on the widespread concern and shock that hit Finland.

Are you going to move the goalposts once again, and simply brush that aside as well?

?? Typical reactions of sadness and condolences from politicians and public figures, that happen every time there's a school shooting. Nothing new here.

You are not in a position where you can order parents not to worry about their children. Fortunately, you are also not in a position to dictate how they will use their influence to change things.

Fortunately, you are also not in a position to make instant laws based on your pitiful reactionary appeals to emotion.
As if I said anything about "ordering" them anything. Weak.

So far, we haven't had any in Denmark.

What would you propose if it did happen?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I'd say I'd open my mouth and use the body parts we call a "tongue" and "lips", but then it'd sound dirty.

Be flippant about these people's tragedy, if you feel you have to.

It's called a case-by-case basis, genius. It's not arbitrary, it's common sense.
What about your line: one dead? Zero?

Acting on case-by-case is arbitrary.

?? Typical reactions of sadness and condolences from politicians and public figures, that happen every time there's a school shooting. Nothing new here.

I see that you are going to brush that aside as well.

You think it means nothing to these people? They are sad for a few moments, offer their condolences and then move on as if nothing happened?

Fortunately, you are also not in a position to make instant laws based on your pitiful reactionary appeals to emotion.

Strawman. I didn't claim I would be.

As if I said anything about "ordering" them anything. Weak.

That's precisely what you are doing, when you so casually dismiss their concern and their grief.

What would you propose if it did happen?

Clamp down even more on private gun ownership, of course. Kids can't shoot other kids if they can't get guns.

What would your reaction be, if it did happen in Denmark?

 

[zooterkin]

Then, we are back to personal ownership of nukes.

It's time to nail this red herring, which you keep bringing up. I get the impression that you think nukes differ from firearms only in degree. They don't, they differ in kind, as well.

In the UK, every week thousands of people legally take part in recreational shooting with no detrimental effects to people or the environment. Conceivably, it would be possible for the entire adult population to do so, with suitable facilities.

Exactly what level of personal usage of nukes do you think might be sustainable?

And regarding cars, where would you draw the line on the number of acceptable deaths? At the moment, I believe it's around 500 a year in Denmark (the figures I found were about 10 years old), which you presumably think is OK. How many would be too many?

 

[CFLarsen]

It's time to nail this red herring, which you keep bringing up. I get the impression that you think nukes differ from firearms only in degree. They don't, they differ in kind, as well.

In the UK, every week thousands of people legally take part in recreational shooting with no detrimental effects to people or the environment. Conceivably, it would be possible for the entire adult population to do so, with suitable facilities.

Exactly what level of personal usage of nukes do you think might be sustainable?

Who said anything about usage of nukes? We are talking about ownership.

And regarding cars, where would you draw the line on the number of acceptable deaths? At the moment, I believe it's around 500 a year in Denmark (the figures I found were about 10 years old), which you presumably think is OK. How many would be too many?

No, I don't think it is "OK", and you can't talk about acceptable traffic deaths. A traffic death is not just someone who gets killed by cars. E.g., the Danish Board of Health estimates that about 1 in 4 traffic death involves alcohol.

 

[zooterkin]

Who said anything about usage of nukes? We are talking about ownership.

Excuse me?

Yes, the old, tired "cars kill people, too" objection from gun proponents. So do nukes, but I don't hear you advocate private ownership and use of nukes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me?

Two different things. Don't mix them up.

You have gun owners who don't use their guns, but merely have them because, well, they like to have them. Some have them, but will only use them in an emergency.

If you want to ban people from having nukes, you'd have to ban those people from having guns. Won't you?

What, no comment on alcohol-related traffic deaths?

 

[zooterkin]

Do you have a problem with comprehension, or do you simply not like admitting when you're wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have a problem with comprehension, or do you simply not like admitting when you're wrong?

Would you ban private gun ownership, if the owners would not use them, or only use them in emergencies?

Don't you have any comment on the alcohol-reated traffic deaths?

 

[zooterkin]

We were talking about ownership and usage, because you brought both of them up.

I was pointing out that it is quite possible for people to have guns for recreational purposes; it is not possible to do the same with nukes.

What sort of comment do you want from me regarding alcohol related deaths?

How many road deaths do you think would be too many? You seem to accept 500 a year.

 

[CFLarsen]

We were talking about ownership and usage, because you brought both of them up.

I was pointing out that it is quite possible for people to have guns for recreational purposes; it is not possible to do the same with nukes.

Why not?

What sort of comment do you want from me regarding alcohol related deaths?

You will just let it pass? It didn't make you stop and think at all?

How many road deaths do you think would be too many? You seem to accept 500 a year.

Try to read what I post.

 

[zooterkin]

Why not?

Try to read what I post.

You will just let it pass? It didn't make you stop and think at all?

Well, it's no surprise, and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

Try to read what I post.

So, you think cars should be banned, then? That would follow from your stance on guns. If not, what should be done about the unacceptable level of casualties?