Posted on 10/02/2008 4:22:42 AM PDT by marktwain
As a country, Finland is armed to the teeth. There are more than 1,6 million legal weapons in the weapons register, spread out among nearly 650,000 owners.
On a per capita basis we have the fourth largest number of small arms in the world, right after the United States, Yemen, and Switzerland. According to a Swiss estimate, Finland has an estimated 2,375,000 legal and illegal firearms - that is, one gun for nearly every second Finn.
The good news is that the law requires a permit to own even a slightly heavier weapon, and most licenced gun owners are upstanding citizens.
The bad news is that the licencing system does not work.
As a result, mentally unstable people like the Kauhajoki killer get to own a gun. it gives the possibility to acquire a handgun, which the owner can claim to use for his “hobby”, and which can easily be used for killing people.
Guns are taken for granted in Finland. Guns have many supporters, and for that reason talking about problems related with them is difficult.
When Finland was a predominantly agricultural country, hunting was part of the lifestyle, and the tradition has remained in force in spite of urbanisation. Many Members of Parliament and many corporate executives hunt, and increasing numbers of women are doing so as well.
The conscript military teaches people how to use weapons, and national defence associations, which maintain the skills of Finland’s reservists, are another large lobby group, in addition to hunters.
Shooting is also a sport which receives public funding.
The prospect of Olympic medals attracts increasing numbers of hobbyists to firing ranges.
On the other hand, opponents of guns have not formed pressure groups.
The world of hunting is alien for many Finns, and the world of gun hobbyists is strange to say the least, but before the school killings of Jokela and Kauhajoki, nobody took to the barricades to call for a ban on guns, or for restrictions on their acquisition.
There was no reason to fear - back then.
Hunting weapons - shotguns and rifles - are not a real problem.
Finland has a surprisingly large number of them as well - about 300,000.
A handgun was the weapon used both in Jokela and Kauhajoki. When they applied for their licences, both shooters had managed to convince the police that they would use the gun for a shooting hobby.
In reality, the shooters used the handguns for the specific purpose for which this type of weapon was originally developed - that of killing people.
So what should be done about handguns?
On Tuesday evening, just over nine hours after the Kauhajoki tragedy, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) hinted at a very heavy-handed approach: a ban on handguns in private use.
It was a courageous move from the leader of the Centre Party, as the voters of that party probably do more shooting than Finns on the average.
Vanhanen’s proposal has not received much support. Antti Herlin, CEO of the elevator manufacturer Kone, who is an enthusiastic hunter, would be willing to restrict the availability and possession of handguns.
In the North Savo region, police have slowed down the process of handling applications for handgun licences.
Vanhanen’s idea is not completely unheard of.
After all, Britain banned practically all handguns in 1997, soon after the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, which claimed the lives of 16 children.
Why not in Finland?
Acquiring a gun would become at least much more difficult for the likes of the Jokela and Kauhajoki killers.
We would get rid of going back and forth about what is wrong in the firearms licencing system if permits for handguns would simply not be available.
Finns have already disarmed people in other countries. If disarmament was successful in Aceh, in Indonesia, then perhaps it might work here as well.
Ret. Colonel Kalle Liesinen headed the disarmament effort a couple of years ago in Aceh.
The present executive director of the Crisis Management Initiative does not feel that the implementation of a ban on weapons would be a problem in Finland - at least not technically. However, he points out that there would be some pitfalls.
“If an announcement were made in Finland, calling on people to hand over their pistols to the police, and that after day X they would be considered illegal, then all good people would turn in their pistols. But then legal weapons would be taken away, and the number of illegal guns would increase. The value of illegal weapons would grow after that, and larger amounts of illegal guns would start coming here from outside the country”, Liesinen says.
Jouni Laiho, head of firearms management at the Ministry of the Interior, takes a similar line.
He feels that an even bigger issue than the illegal market is what would happen to the existing legal weapons.
A ban would interfere with the constitutional protection of personal property.
“Finland has never expropriated personal property during peacetime.”
Buying away people’s guns would be anything but simple, notes Liesinen, who has personal experience in the implementation of disarmament.
In disarmament efforts by the United Nations, Kalashnikov assault rifles have been bought for about 200 dollars apiece.
“All weapons experts warn against this, because it will automatically create a market for the weapons”, Liesinen points out.
If a full ban on handguns is not possible to implement in Finland, would a ban on certain models work out?
The small pistols used in Jokela and Kauhajoki had nothing to do with sports shooting, says Risto Aarrekivi, executive director of the Finnish Shooting Sport Federation.
The guns used in Jokela and Kauhajoki were .22 calibre pistols.
The type was previously popular in competitive shooting, but then some .22 calibre pistols came onto the market that were certainly no sporting goods. They were copies of larger pistols used by police and soldiers.
“They are militaristic in appearance, and appeal to people who want to swagger and intimidate others, but who are unable to get licences for a larger weapon”, says Helsinki gun dealer William Waldstein.
“I am amazed that anyone would want to grant a licence for something like that”, Aarrekivi says.
If only macho guns were banned, competitive target shooting would be spared a death blow. Then even the expropriation of certain weapons would be easier to swallow.
At least one police official, National Police Commissioner Mikko Paatero, has given his cautious support to the idea.
However, the lobbyist for shooting enthusiasts sees a trap in this idea as well.
“Each year gun factories come up with new models of weapons, and if one letter is moved to another place in the name, then it would no longer be on the list [of banned weapons]. This would be a bottomless swamp”, Aarrekivi says.
Other proposals for restrictions on guns are mainly small-time tinkering, and even moves with a short reach have their opponents.
For instance, the minimum age for acquiring a handgun could be raised from the present 18 years, but what would be the right age?
The perpetrator of the Kauhajoki killing was a 22-year-old.
Another option would be that handgun permits would be granted to an association, and not to a private individual.
For instance, shooting clubs would monitor who can shoot with a licence held by an organisation. But would such associations have any real scope to enforce the rules?
Yet another proposal has been that the guns would be kept behind locked doors at the firing ranges.
It is unlikely that such a plan would succeed. Most of Finland’s shooting ranges are outdoor ranges in remote rural areas, which are not necessarily even fenced in.
Naturally, a ban or various restrictions would not be enough on their own.
In the words of Kalle Liesinen: “A ban on weapons is a palliative for the conscience, when we do not dare ask why people go crazy, and why they cannot be sent to treatment in time.”
At present the police do not have access to the health information of firearms certificate applicants. Instead, everything is based on a personal evaluation.
In the Kauhajoki case it was revealed that the police do not have access to information concerning the reasons for someone’s premature discharge from military service, for instance.
Medical certificates are required for getting a driving licence, but no such certificate is needed for a basic firearms permit.
And even a doctor’s certificate does not reveal much about an applicant. It gives some information about a person’s eyesight and hearing, for instance, but mental disorders can easily be left unnoticed during a routine check-up.
It would help the police if they could get access to information of the Social Insurance Institution on possible psychopharmaceutical drugs prescribed to the applicant.
But do we want to live in a country where the authorities give out this kind of information to the police?
When security is put above privacy, the result can be frightening, as can be seen in different parts of the world, in the aftermath of 9/11 for instance.
In addition, a person needing medication for mental conditions might avoid seeking medical attention if he or she knows that the prescription information might subsequently become available to the police.
Those supporting a ban or restrictions on handguns should not hold out too high hopes.
The school killings in Jokela were followed by the same kind of calls for amending firearms legislation that have been seen now, but which never resulted in any action being taken.
The Ministry of the Interior rejected one proposal after another.
“The idea of the civil servants was simply to secure the gun market. Of primary importance to them seems to be that 60,000 permits must be issued each year”, says MP Jacob Söderman (SDP).
Söderman has put forward two oral questions to the government on shortcomings in gun licencing procedure.
He is one of the few Members of Parliament who continued to be interested in the matter after the shock of Jokela blew over.
Söderman has proposed that after the first gun permit, a gun could be used only while hunting and in target practice under the supervision of a named individual.
For the first two years after the granting of a permit, the gun would have to be kept stored in a guarded location.
The reluctance of the Ministry of the Interior could be seen in the handling of the European Union firearms directive.
In the EU ruling, the greatest change from the point of view of Finnish law would have been that the age limit for personal ownership of a weapon would rise from 15 to 18 years of age.
Finland vehemently opposed the draft directive all the way until the Jokela school shootings, but did not have the nerve to continue to do so after the incident.
The directive came into force in July, and the changes to Finnish legislation linked with it are expected to take effect next spring.
After that, only a person who is over 18 will be allowed to own a gun.
This change would not have prevented the killings in Jokela and Kauhajoki, as both of the gunmen were over 18. The changes brought by the EU are also mainly cosmetic. Tightening the gun laws is Finland’s responsibility.
Ultimately the question is one of weighing citizens’ rights.
What is most important for us? Protection of privacy? Protection of property? Freedom to pursue a hobby? Or perhaps the freedom to live in a country where there is no need to fear getting shot at school.
Still, they fail to mention the most important use of guns, which is defense of self, community, and nation. It this against the law in Finland? Perhaps a Finnish freind can educate us on this.
What's the answer to this dilemma? I don't know, but I do know that when law abiding citizens are threatened by madmen, the answer to the problem is not for their elected government to disarm law abiding citizens.
Ban Handguns? You’d think these people never heard of a “sawed off” shotgun!
Here in the US, it'll likely be the mythical "right-wing militia" groups again, especially of Zero is prez.
Remind the Suomalainen that Russia is flexing its muscles again.
There is the problem right there. They don't have half enough weapons. If they had enough guns, there would be at least one for every Finn.
My definition of too many guns is a state where single twelve gauges and .38 revolvers are standing on street corners begging every person who passes to take them home.
I see short memories (people not remembering just what a dismal president Jimmah with this socialist BS was) are not just a problem in the US. You’d think the Finns would have remembered 1939 and how many civilian arms were used then. Do these people ever study history?
How sad that the people of Finland, whose grandfathers took out Red Army invaders 40:1 in the Winter War in defense of their homeland due to the incredible shooting skills, seem on the verge of banning guns because of the actions of a couple of nuts...aided,of course, by the ‘’well-meaning’’ government security officials.
Whatever the country, any call to make ordinary, law-abiding citizens hand over their liberties based on the actions of madmen or criminals is an unforgivable affront to human dignity.
To shoot bullets?
In the words of Kalle Liesinen: “A ban on weapons is a palliative for the conscience, when we do not dare ask why people go crazy, and why they cannot be sent to treatment in time.”
Thats the most important comment in the piece. There seems to be an increasing number of people who are going stir crazy and deciding that mass murder, usually followed by suicide, is the only option left in their lives. A knee jerk reaction of banning handguns after such an atrocity may be very understandable but it only addresses the problem of HOW, when we should be asking WHY.
Friend, one for every two is more than enough. Considering that half the population will be either underage, in prison, mad or incapable.
LOL! I saw a nice Winchester O/U standing near a freeway on ramp yesterday with a sign saying, "Will hunt for warm place to sleep."
If you don’t want it, I will give it a loving home.
King Vanders has decreed half the population to be unfit for basic human Rights...
how special...
the original seemed much more appropriate in this case...
Whose definition of underage, in prison, mad or incapable? I hope you don't mean the states. Every person should have the means to self defense available to them.
Prostitution is illegal and banned and there are no hookers in New York City anymore? Drugs are banned and illegal and there are no drugs in LA anymore. Corruption in government is illegal and banned and there is no corruption in office anymore. Pretty good, huh? Go ahead .. make all handguns illegal and ban them. How wonderful ... no guns or violence anymore. My Sicilian grandfather had only one word for this kind of thinking ... “Ignoranza!”
This is an old argument about guns. How do you keep them out of the hands of madmen? The answer that I arrived at years ago is that is the price of freedom. To keep the Government’s snout out of it occasionally the system will fail and someone irresponsible will get their hands on a weapon. Then it is up to the citizenry to rectify the problem.
As armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a serf. It is as simple as that.
Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.