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.
The only disagreement that I might have with you would be in your zero tolerance of any limitation on these rights. Assuming that we're talking about hunting, does that mean that you don't think the government should be able to (for instance) impose hunting seasons? That is, after all, a government-imposed limitation.
“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.”
Funny, I saw something close to this recently.A Winchester 101 in a store for about 500 bucks. It didn’t look in bad shape, either. Too bad my finances are hosed right now, or I’d be considering it a lot more seriously.
Where’s the Bjärf Alert?
Logically yes. Doesn’t seem to be working that way in the UK at this instance though. As I said, could be several reasons for that.
LOL very good...
Are you a member of the NRA?
You can never have too many.
***there are surely some common sense reasons for disarming certain people. ***
Already taken care of by the Fifth Amendment. Anything else is an infringement.
Please elucidate, Im not too familiar with that.
If a nation has firearms running around on the streets unwanted and unloved, that nation has too many firearms. Unless and until we reach that point we don’t have too many as a society. (and I don’t think we ever will, there are too many people like me who are always willing to give a good home to an orphan gun)
An individual can have too many guns. Houses do have limited volume and structural capacity. (If you cannot fit another gun in your house or your floor joist have passed the breaking point, you have too many guns.)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless he or she is on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I looked it up, but I’m sorry, I don’t follow.
Not true, there are always larger houses.
***nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;***
Special laws are not needed. The above part of the 5th Amendment takes care of criminals of most stripes.
It might be interesting to watch if Finland’s answer to the NRA can stop this.
“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.”
Next time the Red Army comes across the border, don’t run crying to me.
If you have to ask.....
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.