School shooting in Finland

[Lonewulf]

What did you just do there? You made a political decision: What you see as good outweigh what you see as bad.

So there's no logic behind it, then?

Again, you are reaching your conclusion based on political decisions.

Not logical?

Oh, no. Don't pull that card here. You know the kind of "skepticism" we are talking about - the one we use here, on this forum. Science. Facts. Evidence.

So there is no evidence behind any of these decisions? We make decisions with no evidence at all as to whether they would do good or bad?

Sorry, not interested in playing that game. Good day.

When you turn the tables like that, you are in fact saying that it is okay to "imagine", and then ask the other guy for evidence against what you imagine.

You back up your own imaginations with evidence.

And here you show lack of understanding as to burden of proof.

He made the claim. The burden of proof is on him.

Nice try, though

 

[Matthew Best]

He made the claim. The burden of proof is on him.

Actually, the way it happened was Sir Philip made the claim:

Obtaining pistols, shotguns or assault rifles for illegal purposes is easy as obtaining drugs.

and I asked for evidence for that assertion.

Nice try, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, the way it happened was Sir Philip made the claim:

and I asked for evidence for that assertion.

Nice try, though.

Well, hey, I just have to show that it's not difficult to obtain firearms illegally, right?

If talking about the U.S.:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176h.html

• Just over half of the felons (compared to one-quarter of the general population) said that they owned handguns.

• Fewer than one in six had purchased their guns from a retail dealer.

• Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases.

"About 3.1 million of the estimated 8.6 million firearms transactions each year are outside licensed retail sources."

Of course, this is the U.S. (ETA: Uh, I think.)

As for Finland.

In Finland there are 32 privately owned firearms per 100 civilians according to the Finnish Ministry of the Interior[1][2]. By the end of 2006 there were somewhat over 1,6 million licensed firearms and spread among Finland's population of 5,3 million it comes to 30,5 per 100 people. Unlicensed firearms are estimated at around 1,5 per 100. There are some 650,000 firearms permit holders in Finland. 60% of firearm permits are issued for hunting weapons[3].

As for "as easy to obtain as drugs", I'd think that a side-by-side comparison of the two would take a bit more work than I'm ready to give to compare. However, it doesn't seem like firearms are so incredibly difficult to obtain.

And if you remember, the claim that I was responding to stated, specifically, that someone would "give you a weird look" if you asked how to obtain a firearm. Somehow, I doubt people that are involved in a very criminal element find it so weird when you want to obtain a firearm, especially when they're involved in drug trafficking.

But hey, that's just me.

Also, I'd note that firearms used in other school shootings (notably the Columbine massacre) were usually obtained illegally. But again, this is the U.S., not Finland.

Just to work with figures here:

If 1.5 out of 100 guns are in unlicensed hands, assuming that these are spread out and not all sitting on a very large collection shelf (and some people do tend to collect quite a few firearms...), that's about 79,500 people with illegal firearms.

Hm, this is interesting

The total number of unregistered firearms is impossible to know; according to some estimates, there may be as few as 50,000 or as many as 500,000. The majority of the unregistered firearms are personal war booty Soviet or German firearms dating to WWII.

That puts the number up to about 500,000 unregistered firearms in the high range.

I'm just quoting this 'cause it's actually interesting:

Thanks to changes to the legislation, unregistered firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does so of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of unregistered firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even the Finnish Civil War.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, hey, I just have to show that it's not difficult to obtain firearms illegally, right?

Er, no.

As for "as easy to obtain as drugs", I'd think that a side-by-side comparison of the two would take a bit more work than I'm ready to give to compare.

That's what I figured. The assertion remains unproved.

Thanks for trying, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Er, no.

That's what I figured. The assertion remains unproved.

Thanks for trying, though.

Wow.

I've never seen someone so dishonestly ignore all the facts, and be so snobbish in the meantime. I took the time and effort to provide figures, and they go entirely ignored. That's just... low. I waste my time, and you get the chance to look snooty. Screw you.

As to the meantime, I've provided actual evidence that firearms, in the U.S., are easy to buy. I've demonstrated this in the above post, by quoting the National Center for Policy Analysis. They have stated, and I quote again:

• Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases.

Does anyone that is actually honest wish to comment?

 

[CFLarsen]

The whole "why should I trust you with X" argument is incredibly weak on its own. Cars are the most glaring example - lethal 1-ton+ boxes of metal piloted by barely-trained, apathetic cretins and well-meaning, careful, but fallible people. Hundreds of thousands dead every year. And yet we wouldn't dare ban those because most people use them. This analogy in turn falls down in terms of how essential cars are seen to be to our "quality of life", versus firearms. In America, guns seem to be pretty much on a par, and the sheer logistics of banning them is comparable to a ban on cars - hard to implement and impossible to enforce.

Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

So there's no logic behind it, then?

Not logical?

So there is no evidence behind any of these decisions? We make decisions with no evidence at all as to whether they would do good or bad?

Sorry, not interested in playing that game. Good day.

You are clearly not interested in understanding what I say.

And here you show lack of understanding as to burden of proof.

He made the claim. The burden of proof is on him.

Nice try, though

You are clearly not interested in understanding what others say, either.

As to the meantime, I've provided actual evidence that firearms, in the U.S., are easy to buy.

Given the proliferation of guns in the US, this is hardly surprising.

 

[Morrigan]

Rare? Perhaps. Devastating? Shaking society?

You think a lone dork shooting a few people in a blind rage is "devastating" and "society-shaking"?

If you point to rarity as the reason for action, would you not act after the 2004 tsunami? Such tsunamis of that magnitude are rare. What about 9-11? Doesn't happen that often - would you simply have done nothing after that?

Please tell me what you plan on doing to avoid a tsunami, genius. As for 9/11, it did cause quite a bit more damage than a school shooting. Your alarmist reaction is hilarious.

How often do you think shootings can happen, before you are willing to legislate?

Legislate what, anyway?

Character assassination.

Stop whining. You made an implication, then danced around it by saying it was "just asking question". That's intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

Lying doesn't help your argument either.

Prove that it's a lie.

 

[Big Les]

Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

That's true. But isn't it a roundabout appeal to emotion? Ie how is the weapon created to kill objectively worse than the thing that becomes a weapon as a byproduct of its use? Surely what matters is how many are killed, and how often.

c30k gun deaths (1999)
c40k car deaths (1999)

The people killed by the car are just as dead.

 

[Matthew Best]

Wow.

I've never seen someone so dishonestly ignore all the facts, and be so snobbish in the meantime.

I guess you haven't been here as long as your number of posts would imply.

I took the time and effort to provide figures, and they go entirely ignored.

Your figures, while interesting, don't do what I asked.

That's just... low. I waste my time, and you get the chance to look snooty. Screw you.

Nobody asked you to waste your time!

As to the meantime, I've provided actual evidence that firearms, in the U.S., are easy to buy. I've demonstrated this in the above post, by quoting the National Center for Policy Analysis.

The statement made (not by you, admittedly) was that illegal guns are as easy to buy as drugs in the UK, so your figures about how easy they are to buy in the US are not helpful. Though I thank you for looking them up.

Anyway, it's a difficult statement to confirm or deny - what does "as easy to obtain" actually mean? I suppose it's possible that illegal weapons are "as easy to obtain" as drugs, because the demand for them is so low that it's easy for the supply to meet it.

Anyway, the interesting point in all this was Big Les's - that spree killings are typically done using legal weapons, quite possibly because the sort of people who do them are too cowardly to go through the difficult and scary process of obtaining them illegally.

 

[CFLarsen]

You think a lone dork shooting a few people in a blind rage is "devastating" and "society-shaking"?

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

Do you deny that this has shaken Finland?

Please tell me what you plan on doing to avoid a tsunami, genius.

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.

As for 9/11, it did cause quite a bit more damage than a school shooting. Your alarmist reaction is hilarious.

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.

Legislate what, anyway?

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

Stop whining. You made an implication, then danced around it by saying it was "just asking question". That's intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

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

If we can't ask for clarification, what debate can we have? We will only have people talking, but no one is listening.

Prove that it's a lie.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

To pick a few.

Do you accept the evidence?

That's true. But isn't it a roundabout appeal to emotion? Ie how is the weapon created to kill objectively worse than the thing that becomes a weapon as a byproduct of its use? Surely what matters is how many are killed, and how often.

c30k gun deaths (1999)
c40k car deaths (1999)

The people killed by the car are just as dead.

In which case you must also allow private ownership of bazookas, hand grenades, tanks, Patriot and Stinger missiles, and of course nukes.

 

[Lonewulf]

I guess you haven't been here as long as your number of posts would imply.

Most people aren't so blatant about dismissing a post. They actually take the time to lie, weasel out of the facts, or just ignore it altogether.

Your figures, while interesting, don't do what I asked.
[...]
The statement made (not by you, admittedly) was that illegal guns are as easy to buy as drugs in the UK, so your figures about how easy they are to buy in the US are not helpful. Though I thank you for looking them up.

Ah, in the UK! Later on, I intend to actually go back and rereading some posts made earlier in this thread. I seem to have mistaken the claims.

Anyway, it's a difficult statement to confirm or deny - what does "as easy to obtain" actually mean? I suppose it's possible that illegal weapons are "as easy to obtain" as drugs, because the demand for them is so low that it's easy for the supply to meet it.

Well, to be honest, it does seem like in the UK, it is very hard to obtain a firearm.

This link has some interesting info as to prices of illegal firearms:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/r279.pdf

Illegal drug markets underpin the criminal economy and represent the most important theme in relation to the illegal use of firearms. Firearms possession was reported in relation to robberies of drug dealers, territorial disputes, personal protection and sanctioning of drug market participants.

l In addition to drug dealer robbers, four other groups of armed robber were identified:
specialist armed robbers, mixed offending robbers, opportunists and debtors. Armed robberies were committed with realistic imitation firearms by those who lacked contacts to obtain real firearms.

So yeah, it seems difficult to obtain real firearms in the UK.

Illegal drug markets

Illegal drug markets were found to underpin the criminal
economy and represent the single most important theme in
relation to the illegal use of firearms, characterised by
systemic violence that appears to increase towards the
street (retail) end of the market. Firearms possession was
reported in relation to robberies of drug dealers, territorial
disputes, personal protection and sanctioning of drug
market participants.

So yeah, I don't quite see why asking a drug dealer about obtaining a firearm would be a social faux pas.

However, it DOES seem very difficult to obtain a firearm in the UK. Meanwhile, drug prices have been skyrocketing... downwards. Well, I guess they've been groundrocketing.

According to here:

http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugpricetrend9403.htm

Heroin prices have gone from 82 pounds a gram in 1995 down to 37 pounds a gram in 2003. I'm not sure how it is in 2007.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/04rocktabsprice.htm <-- 2004 prices.

As for firearms to worry about, it seems that the majority of illegal firearms in the UK are converted imitation firearms.

Converted imitation firearms
Converted firearms are more widely available and
cheaper than purpose-built firearms, although they are
considered inferior and indeed dangerous to use. New
prices were reported to range from £400 to £800, with
.38” revolvers at the lower end.

A converted imitation firearm... turned into a real gun. Wow. I'd think that would be more expensive... isn't that, like, practically making a whole new firearm, only without the casing?

Anyway, the interesting point in all this was Big Les's - that spree killings are typically done using legal weapons, quite possibly because the sort of people who do them are too cowardly to go through the difficult and scary process of obtaining them illegally.

Spree killings being typically done using legal weapons goes against what I thought I knew about spree killings.

I'll dig up some data.

 

[Matthew Best]

I guess you changed your mind about putting me on ignore.

However, it DOES seem very difficult to obtain a firearm in the UK. Meanwhile, drug prices have been skyrocketing... downwards.

And it seems you're agreeing with me - that drugs are easier to obtain than guns in the UK.

Maybe now we can get back to whatever it was that was being discussed. When you go back and re-read the posts, perhaps you can remind me what it was..

 

[TX50]

A converted imitation firearm... turned into a real gun. Wow. I'd think that would be more expensive... isn't that, like, practically making a whole new firearm, only without the casing?

I think by "imitation firearm" they may mean deactivated guns that
have been "reactivated". Some of the earlier "deacts" can be quite readily
converted back to chamber and fire ammunition. Such deactivated guns
can also be purchased legally without need for a license.

 

[CFLarsen]

Most people aren't so blatant about dismissing a post. They actually take the time to lie, weasel out of the facts, or just ignore it altogether.

Compare with:

Ah, in the UK! Later on, I intend to actually go back and rereading some posts made earlier in this thread. I seem to have mistaken the claims.

So yeah, it seems difficult to obtain real firearms in the UK.

Wanna try other countries as well?

However, it DOES seem very difficult to obtain a firearm in the UK. Meanwhile, drug prices have been skyrocketing... downwards. Well, I guess they've been groundrocketing.

Are you saying that the latter is a consequence of the former?

I'll dig up some data.

Gee, basic research. Whatta concept.

 

[Big Les]

I think by "imitation firearm" they may mean deactivated guns that
have been "reactivated". Some of the earlier "deacts" can be quite readily
converted back to chamber and fire ammunition. Such deactivated guns
can also be purchased legally without need for a license.

Possibly, but I actually doubt it. They would simply say "firearm". Believe it or not there are quite a few converted imitation weapons - forward-venting blank-firers mostly. At one point you could buy a "Brocock" self-contained air cartridge pistol that was essentially a proper steel-constructed revolver with a few cuts made to the cylinder. They plugged that little loophole about 4 years ago, and made convertible blankfirers VERY difficult to get hold of. By and large illegal guns are "proper" ones coming in from (I think) eastern Europe, but your average entry-level gang-banger piece is one of these highly dangerous .22LR blankfirer conversions.

 

[Big Les]

In which case you must also allow private ownership of bazookas, hand grenades, tanks, Patriot and Stinger missiles, and of course nukes.

Why must you? All of those are far more destructive than semi-automatic small arms, and cannot be used safely for either animal killing or for recreation. Unlike those weapons, the ones you list are not only designed to kill - it's their only feasible function.

I think you're on a slippery slope fallacy there Claus, with more than a touch of ad absurdum about it.

 

[Lonewulf]

I guess you changed your mind about putting me on ignore.

Yeah, I compromised and just put CFLarsen on it.

And it seems you're agreeing with me - that drugs are easier to obtain than guns in the UK.

"It seems"? You mean it isn't obvious that I'm agreeing with you?

Maybe now we can get back to whatever it was that was being discussed. When you go back and re-read the posts, perhaps you can remind me what it was..

Blah, I'm sick right now and couldn't even tell ya if I knew.

I still hold that asking a drug dealer for access to a firearm isn't exactly taboo, though. Drug trafficking is a dangerous biz.

 

[Matthew Best]

"It seems"? You mean it isn't obvious that I'm agreeing with you?

I thought you might be being sarcastic.

It turns out that getting hold of illegal guns is so difficult, even armed robbers don't always manage it! I guess they never considered going and asking the guy they buy cannabis off if he had a spare gun lying about the place....

 

[CFLarsen]

Why must you? All of those are far more destructive than semi-automatic small arms, and cannot be used safely for either animal killing or for recreation. Unlike those weapons, the ones you list are not only designed to kill - it's their only feasible function.

I think you're on a slippery slope fallacy there Claus, with more than a touch of ad absurdum about it.

Oh, it's absurd alright: The absurdity of pointing to numbers killed and how often it happens - but not how it happens - as a reason not to act.

School shootings. Not a lot of those happening, and not a lot of killed, compared to car deaths. So, let's not do anything, when school shootings happen.

Nuclear (or, more precise: atomic) bombings. Not a lot of those happening either, and not a lot of killed, compared to car deaths. So, let's not do anything, when nukes drop out of the sky.

Take a look at how you distinguish between the various weapons: You point to destructive power as the determining factor in whether people should have them or not. If you want people to have cars, just how many killed would you accept from X, before you would ban X?

You have drawn the line somewhere. I'm asking you where, exactly.

You also point to designed function. But what is the designed function of a gun? To kill at a distance. That people use them for other things does not take away their designed function.

Yeah, I compromised and just put CFLarsen on it.

The downside - from your POV - is that I can now demolish every argument you have, without you being able to counter it.

The upside - from your POV - of putting me on ignore is that you don't get to see that.

I fail to see how you benefit from that, if you are interested in debate. If you are interested in closing your ears and simply go "la-la-la-I-cannot-hear-a-thing", putting people on ignore is the way to do it.

I still hold that asking a drug dealer for access to a firearm isn't exactly taboo, though. Drug trafficking is a dangerous biz.

That's an entirely different thing that going to a drug dealer for easy gun access.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why?

Because.

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

DR