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.
Theres no need to sneer. That’s not what I was saying and I find it very hard to believe that you thought otherwise.
There is a proportion of the population (and I dont know whether its exactly half, or 40% or whatever..it varies from place to place no doubt) who you wouldnt want to have a gun, or wouldnt want one themselves. Anyone in prison for a start off. Anyone who was insane. Children, babes in arms, people with no hands, whatever.
All I was saying is that you are not going to get 100% gun ownership in any country, no more than you are going to get 100% TV ownership or 100% spade ownerwhip or 100% computer ownership.
Russians. Blown their arms off in the winter war :)
When you live that close to Russia, as the Finns do, It should be an Anti-Tank weapon.
Don’t get tetchy!
The exact definition, where you draw the line, is obviously a matter for the citizens of each individual country, but there are surely some common sense reasons for disarming certain people. You would not give someone in prison a gun for the very simple reason that he or she would probably use it to get out of prison! You would not allow someone who declared that they were actually “the man in the moon” to have a gun, or indeed any sharp object. I have a friend whose hands shake so much with palsy that they would be physically incapable of aiming a gun. They would be a menace to anyone near them. Then there is the matter of children. Some would say minors should be x years old before they have a gun, some would say y years old.
The point is that there is a proportion of the population in any society who will be forbidden (perhaps temporarily) from owning firearms. Its unrealistic to think 100% of any population will have guns. Actually it unrealistic to think 100% of any population will do anything in common. For goodness sake, not 100% of the population agree the world is round.
The author of this article seems to be a well-meaning, but a terribly uninformed person.
The NRA should send John Lott to Finland for a semester as a visiting professor!
just because 100% isnt possible, doesnt mean it isnt desirable to all who want a means of defense/freedom...
I also get annoyed with the whole 'insane' and 'felons' arguments, cause IF they are too dangerous to have access to arms then they are too dangerous to have access to gasoline, matches, pointy sticks etc...and Need to be removed from the streets that my wife & kids travel...thus hey wouldnt count in the 'base 100%' in gilbos' ledger anyhow...
hope that clears up my opinion...
First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American's "friend"...
~~~~~~~~~
Every serious citizen should have at hand:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Friend", if you choose to be a non-owner, don't come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...
TXnMA, you need to check your own tagline. You are telling lies about me.
Lets start from the top. “Friend, one for every two is more than enough.”, is met with the response “First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American’s “friend””
Why is that? What attitude? I am arguing numbers, not rights, or constitutional matters. The point of my argument, which is quite clear, is that if there is one gun for every second person, that means most people are going to be armed, because approx half the population will not be able to have or use guns, for the reasons outlined. Why is that so hard to understand? It’s not illogical.
Then what is it with this list of armaments? Do you expect me to be cowed into thinking that I have neglected my duties as a citizen if I cannot put a tick on everything there? And by the way, you missed off Bazooka, claymore mine, armoured personel carrier and small tactical nuclear device.
“After that, they should be free to begin “collecting” firearms — just because they enjoy owning them — and because the Second Amendment says that our right to do so “shall not be infringed”.”
Why do you feel the need to bolster your argument with this passage? I haven’t said anything denying any of this. In fact I support all of it. Do you think that by stating it, while I havent, that it will invalidate anything else I say, by some process of pseudo-conservative blame osmosis?
“”Friend”, if you choose to be a non-owner, don’t come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...”
And again. Have I told you I am a non-owner? Is there anything in my statement that says I am?
You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon.
I tell you the truth, “friend”. With hair-trigger reactions like this I’m not sure I’d let YOU near a gun.
Actually, I believe violent crime in the UK is currently declining. Of course, there could be a number of reasons for that (like no-one has enough money to be worth mugging)
No, it wouldn't. Criminals will get guns if they want them.
Just like how making gun free zones in schools has protected students everywhere.
* At least two hunting rifles -- one for small game, and one for deer-sized game
Nitpick: Not all serious citizens hunt. In fact, the vast majority of gunowners in the Unites States are not hunters. Other than that, I would agree with your list.
1. How many weapons per capita is enough.
2. Whether a person should be restricted from owning a firearm by the government or not.
I believe 1:1 is a good ratio as a minimum and allows for non-functioning arms and users. I would agree to disagree on this.
I don't trust you or the government to make that decision for me. I don't trust me to make that decision for others, unless they are in front of me doing something blatantly stupid. No person should be barred from gun ownership for any reason because that is such a slippery slope that is so easy to abuse. There is some danger from erratic individuals that way, but not nearly the danger that a government taking people's weapons poses.
Anyone with a bottle of gasoline with a wick has an antitank weapon. The Finns coined the name for that contraption in the Winter War.
Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.
That is precisely how the anti-gunners operate: limit ownership -- then eliminate the limited number.
You enumerated; I enumerated. My numbers reflect reality for the region in which I live.
"You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon."
That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity.
You obviously sought a reaction with your "more than enough" edict. Clearly, you got more than one. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that causes you to believe that positing an infringement (limitation ) is acceptable? Incremental infringement is still infringement.
Squirm around all you like; your original statement speaks for itself. No amount of "but I didn't say" crawfishing erases what you did say...
fin.
I’m not so sure we are in disagreement about your point one. My argument is simply that it is not possible for 100% of the population to be armed, and I mean not physically or mentally or practically possible, so a 1 in 2 ratio means that just about everyone who could be carrying firearms probably is doing. The rights of whether they do or not are another matter, and depend totally on the laws of the land in question - I’m not sure what the exact situation is in Finland.
As far as how many is enough - I would think that depends to a certain extent on the perceived level of threat. If people feel insecure they tend to buy guns. If they feel safe then they don’t buy as many. This is not unusual - nations do the same thing. In times of war they increase their military, in times of peace they demobilise.
I see where you are coming from in point two, but consider. The government is of the people, by the people for the people (apologies if I’ve gotten that the wrong way round!) Your government IS you, or at least its supposed to be. Therefore, in the USA, the State places the burden for making these kinds of moral decisions in YOUR hands, whether you like it or not. And lets face it, that’s better than letting someone else do it.
It therefore follows that you DO have to make that decision as to whether someone should be restricted from owning a firearm. Now I understand the logic of the slippery slope, but I don’t think that neccesarily applies. After all, you have a right to freedom of movement, but if you break the law the State can limit that, by putting you in Gaol. The State can also disenfranchise you, because you lose the vote when you are in prison. If you drive a vehicle recklessly, they can fine you, or confiscate your licence. Yet no one ever argues that those things are the first stage on a “slippery slope” (probably because they have widespread if grudging support!)
A lot is made about the “right” to own guns, but gun ownership is also a responsibility (the two concepts of rights and responsibility usually do go together, something that liberals never quite seem to be able to grasp). I personally have no problems with someone who handles weapons in an irresponsible way being punished for doing so, up to and including losing the right to own or use one (at least temporarily). I understand people will differ on what qualifies as “responsible”, but I’m talking general principles here.
And on a purely tactical level, consider this. The biggest problem gun-owners have in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, is that they all get tarred with the same brush whenever some idiot goes on a mad shooting spree. The anti-gun lobby uses every such instance to pressure for more controls. But, if laws are in place to punish individuals who misuse weapons in any way, there is automatically a “disconnect” between them and the vast majority, who are only interested in hunting, or defending their homes and families and livelihoods. In other words, the emphasis is placed upon the individual, rather than the concept of owning and using firearms itself.
“Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.”
I wasn’t actually. I was just commenting that 1 gun for every second person probably means that just about everyone who could use a gun has one.
“That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity. “
Paranoia beckons.
“You obviously sought a reaction with your “more than enough” edict.”
It wasn’t an edict and no I did not.
“Squirm around all you like; your original statement speaks for itself. No amount of “but I didn’t say” crawfishing erases what you did say...”
I’m not squirming. I stand EXACTLY by my original statmement (and that is the actual original statement, not the truncated one you used to jump onto your hobby horse, and then cudgel me into the ground with. Remember you ignored the caveat that explained it). Congratulations on stifling all debate. The framers of the constitution that you quote would be so proud.
As I said in #35, "My numbers reflect reality for the [very rural] region in which I live."
The beauty of our constitutional system is that each of us is free to decide to what extent we will choose to exercise our rights. I respect your choice -- whatever that is.
OTOH, I have zero tolerance for any other citizen's (or the government's) effort to impose their own limitation on my rights (or yours, for that matter).
FWIW, I stopped hunting in the mid-1970s -- for reasons that seem right to me.
OTOH, given the present instability of our economy, I have elected to greatly enlarge the size of our vegetable garden. And I have retained my hunting equipment (and have maintained my skills) so that, should the need arise, we will not be limited to a vegetarian diet... (BTW, during the rationing in WWII, my family lived quite well on our "Victory Garden", home-canned food, and the chickens and rabbits we raised -- supplemented by the game and fish we harvested.)
Again, those choices are ours -- and no one else's...
Or, if you do, be prepared to make payment in silver or gold. :)
I think the rate at which felonious behavior is resulting in the perps endind up dead is also a factor. “More guns, less crime.” translates into “Less criminals, less crime.”
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.