[BengalTiger]

Just a thing I noticed:
This maniac went to a school to shoot.
Virginia Tech was also in a school.
There are countless killing sprees in schools, some in churches and other places that have something in common.
Something that is a crazy-@$$-person-magnet, thanks to which they don't usually shoot people in the streets, shopping centers or other places that don't have it....

IT is called a gun (or dangerous object in general) ban.

The crazy-@$$-idiots carefully select their targets (unarmed, and scared to death as soon as SHTF) so they can fulfill their dreams of being some kind of untouchable diety. Once their mission is finished (ie. cops arrive), they take away their life before being welcomed to the real world by the local SWAT team.

[Nuke]

when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.

[Mefustae]

when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.

Meaning accidental shootings will go way, way down. Meaning people won't try to use their gun to try to take out a mugger who also has a gun, killing one or both in the process. Meaning there will be fewer guns on the stolen/on the market after a while, decreasing the circulation.

Civilians possessing guns only gives the illusion of safety, when in fact they're only introducing another threat to their lives.

[Nuclear1]

when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.

Meaning accidental shootings will go way, way down. Meaning people won't try to use their gun to try to take out a mugger who also has a gun, killing one or both in the process. Meaning there will be fewer guns on the stolen/on the market after a while, decreasing the circulation.

Civilians possessing guns only gives the illusion of safety, when in fact they're only introducing another threat to their lives.

Just giving civilians guns and letting them figure it out for themselves will definitely get the above results. 

Like I've said countless times in every single gun debate that HLP has had, firearm education is absolutely necessary.  When you give someone a gun and just expect them to know how to deal with a mugger on the street, of course the situation won't turn out well.  Texas seems to have the right idea with their carry licenses; they require that everyone applying for a concealed carry license pass a written test, marksmanship test, and go through all sorts of hurdles and classes to even get the license.  The result?  Only five permit-holders have been charged with murder since the program started, and of those 5, three were acquitted.

[Nuke]

my point is anywone crazy enough to go out and shoot people will probibly find a way to get a weapon.

[Herra Tohtori]

Yes.

It's a culture related thing more than how the weapons are regulated, I'd say. There's tons of guns in Finland, as you already probably know from media, yet the rate of crime-related gun usage is actually pretty low - even though violence is actually rather common in Finland internationally, if I recall correctly. Which in turn is more related to heavy alcohole consumption than previously planned bouts of killing...

Although it might simply be because Finnish people think it's more badass to kill or seriously maim others with an axe, puukko or a blunt object like a piece of two by four than firearms, which of course is true. It's more personal up close, firearms are a sissy way to solve disagreements (except against enemy at war, since enemies are not people as we all know). In Finland we call this Reilu Meininki. Also it's more difficult to aim when drunk.

</sarcasm>

In this matter I actually have to side with regulated-but-not-banned opinion, since it simply seems like the best compromise between the fact that some weapons are actually needed for hunting all those ***king elk/moose/whatever you call them big grey bastards who kill more people in Finland than any gunman on yearly basis, and the fact that there are bound to be some loons around. With regulation, most of the loons can hopefully be prevented from gaining access on weapons... but that's pretty much "the last line" of the defence IMHO, since as was pointed out, weapons are easy enough to get hold of no matter how loony you are - actually, I'd go as far as say that with enough madness (or Sparta, which to me seems like pretty much same thing though) behind the actions, one could potentially do even more damage in a school with a puukko or axe or even a crowbar than with a .22 semi-automatic pistol. Not necessarily more bodies, though that's also possible, but more damage.

It would be more effective to identify the problems and find a way to remove them instead of blaming too free access to weapons and violent computer games (of all the gore-filled media! [pun not intended]) in turns. I suppose the blaming is simply easier because the actual reasons have already been identified, but the sad lack of resources in mental health problem detection and treatment is gigantic in both US and Finland... which means it's virtually impossible to deal with the actual problem* - and with Finland's high rate of said problems it's actually a small wonder we don't have more of these people doing similar stunts. I just hope this case doesn't set an example of any kind...


*obviously it just means that there are things deemed more important in the budget than healthcare. Which to me is kinda counter-intuitive but oh well. It just means that it doesn't matter if some loons stay unhinged, since getting more of them restrained would be unbeneficial as a whole... ie. would pay more than bring back as benefits.

[Snail]

They wasted space in the hospital for this guy.

[Herra Tohtori]

They wasted space in the hospital for this guy.

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them?

 

[Snail]

He must have been (at a certain point in time) one of the former. Not feeling it for this guy.

[Herra Tohtori]

I don't "feel for him" either, but take an objective look on the matter.

Fact number one is that he had to be given treatment both from legal point of view - not doing it would've been involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence, as well as some other offenses related on abuse of positions and so on... it's all based on Montesquieu's separation of powers - police force belonging to the executive branch, it doesn't have any judicial power and thus is only allowed to very limited amount of "field justice", mainly in the use of power to neutralize hostiles (or should we say, "facilitate communications and terminate hostilities"... ). Against an injured person (suspect or otherwise) who is of no threat, the police doesn't have technically any power. Heck, you can even refuse to pay a speeding ticket and bring it on court AFAIK, in which you will be made to pay the ticket as well as the judiciary expenses, but you can do it - the ticket given by an officer isn't legally binding except if you accept it to be so, at least according to my understanding... but I'm getting on a tangent again.


Not to mention the fact that there wasn't really any surefire way to know that he indeed was the gunman at that point - strong suspicion, maybe, but no more.


Let's take a hypothetic situation. You stumble upon a grievous sight on some street or where-ever; there's ~10 people bleeding, unconscious and at varying condition depending on where they were injured, or dead. Clearly the injuries are bullet wounds. One person has a discharged pistol close to his or her hand and a bullet wound on head, but is still alive. Naturally, you call the paramedics and police and start the treatment of those alive by the best of your ability and possibly try to shout some people to help, but that is not of consequence.

Can you by some incredible intuition surely know that the one close to the gun is indeed the one responsible for the gory sight upon you? And that he or she is not another victim and the gun was placed close to him or her because the wound happened to look like it could be self-inflicted? You could discern it with forensic evidence, but that takes time and the profusively bleeding victims don't have that.

Even if there was no question, like if some of the injured were conscious enough to relay the message of the shooter's identity, would it really be ethically acceptably to leave the person entirely untreated? From my point of view, no. But then again, I don't believe in death as a method of punishment - it makes no sense since it doesn't actually punish anyone, it's just a legally practiced form of revenge where it's practiced...

Mainly because I cannot become an authority to decide who lives and who dies, it's out of my ability - similarly I can't really have any authority to decide who should live or die. Tolkien really summed it up pretty well in Gandalf's mouth as quoted in my previous message.

As to his treatment taking resources - well, tough. It can't really be helped. Such is the matter with every criminal, they take a lot of maintenance (food, quarters, healthcare etc.), and from strictly financial point of view, death penalty would indeed be a good way to simply get rid of the criminals - but it would take an infallible legal system to have even some [utilitarian] ethical argument behind it. And even then I'd regard it as a rather barbaric form of criminal management.

Would you support offing every criminal who takes resources from others, "more deserving" citizens?

[Nuke]

it seems to me that it would be a much more difficult job to detect and treat the mentally ill before they kill people. than it would be to deal with the consequences afterward. frankly there is no one with a system of mass screening of individuals for signs of mental distress. you could say make mandatory psyche evaluations every 6 months. even then you're limited by the skills of the professionals involved in the screening and they can miss details. it takes a trained psychiatrists many sessions to get a grasp on a patient's mental state. thats the way psychoanalysis works. even then they can miss things or the patient can conceal things intentionally.

you cant just use profiling either. lot of people and teens in particular talk about killing people or say there gonna kill people and dont. processes of sending every such individual to the school/office therapist for a brief chat to see if they are a threat, and send em on down to more skilled professionals if they set off any red flag. really that has the same flaws as making everyone see a shrink. also there will be ways of slipping through the cracks and theres not enough resources at hand to counter every possibility.

a simple system wont cut it at all. perhaps a system where behavior is monitored long term by video systems, personality assessments, periodic psyche assessments, ect. could all be cross referenced to identify those at risk of going berzerk. scan everybody to look for signs of instability, flag anything which could cause them to become dangerous. those who seem likely to cause trouble would be scrutinized more. enough stuff gets caught and then you bring em in for a full evaluation. of course this whole concept reaks of a totalitarian nanny state. and it wouldn't always work. for example what would constitute a sign of instability, video game playing, gun fascenation? sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (and in freud's case it was an oral fixation caused by his latent homosexuality, cocain addiction, and insestuous feelings about his mother).

[Herra Tohtori]

it seems to me that it would be a much more difficult job to detect and treat the mentally ill before they kill people.

If only the problem were that, but they're actually having to send *really* frakked up people to be ill at their homes, popping some happy pills, because of lack of resources to provide them with appropriate treatment.

I completely agree that complete idiotproof psychoscreening would not work at all either, but at least it would be nice to have appropriate treatment for those who actually are notified, as well as those who try to get treatment by their own initiative but just won't get it to the level their condition would require.

Of course, those who are suitably frakked up can conceal it very well. Like you said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a malevolent person is just that, not all are explained by some psychological instability - people do bad stuff all the time, and I doubt even half of the cases where the culprit appeals to "diminished responsibility" by grounds of whatever psychological reason are actually as dimimished as they make themselves appear.

And turning the world into one big supercontrolled nanny state is one of the scenarios that give me the most heebie-jeebies of all. Unless I was in the control of the control, of course. That'd be kinda cool. For me.

[Kosh]

IT is called a gun (or dangerous object in general) ban.

Yes, the answer to all of this is to load our high schools with lots of guns, after all what could a bunch of teenagers possibly do with them other than shoot crazy people? Oh wait.......

[castor]

And turning the world into one big supercontrolled nanny state is one of the scenarios that give me the most heebie-jeebies of all.

Consequently, for such a nanny state to succeed, the control would have to be strict enough not allow one to even blink an eye without the government (or whatever) knowing it. If it was any less strict,  a serious anti-government movement would be guaranteed to emerge - resulting in just more deaths.

[Mika]

I'm away from Finland for three days and look what happens! Gotta love the (eco-)intelligentsia, the creme of the society!

Some random thoughts follow:

This issue is not about gun control at all. It is related to the psychological problems people seem to have, and for some reason, in the extreme cases, instead of proudly committing suicide as generations and generations before, they develop it into anger and start shooting or blowing up people.

It is more of an issue of a large school vs. small school and large communities vs. small communities. The teachers cannot establish contact to pupils and these cases remain undetected. In large communities these kind of people find it easier to hide themselves to the masses.

Note that both Auvinen and Linkola are from Helsinki region, i.e. the area which has been separated from the nature (and from the reality in my opinion) quite well already. I have not met any people from this area (meaning the central and northern Finland), who would propose such opinions. Leaving the yard of my parents' house, there is an 80 km trip to next road through forest and that gives you totally different feeling of the issue, if your children might get eaten by the wolves that some people seem to be so keen on protecting.

Linkola and Auvinen have totally forgotten one thing: humans evolved into a society like this for a reason, which is pretty obvious if you try to live as a hunter & gatherer or as a primitive farmer. It has been survival of the fittest in the grand scale also, and human has been the fittest till this point. For me it seems that this "eco-intelligentsia" thinks that the humans have evolved above the natural selection, and their beloved natural selection will not hold with human any more! Which is furthest from the truth, if you look at the history of the Earth.

What I think about Auvinen is that he was an idealist, as many people at his age, but probably found out that the ideals are quite far away from the real world - like the rest of us also. But for some reason he wanted revenge for being rendered 'uncompetitive' because of the strict belief in ideals. And here comes one of the things, I find that the younger generations are ill-equipped to face such problems since they have no experience of handling difficult times - or they think they have but they don't. In 1950s some pupils had to ski 40 kilometers to attend school to give you a perspective. It is also about the same old problem, the school teaches you about anything else but how to live the normal life. What means would there be to correct this? Smaller schools and more community work would be my answer.

For some reason I think they should have published the picture of this guy with half of his head missing (next to the alive and well picture of course) and brain tissue visible and plastered everywhere with the title like: "The Natural Selector takes his own life" to show the probable follow-uppers what it is all about and reduce the possible martyrdom-value (and I know .22 cal doesn't do that kind of damage but I think you got the idea what I was trying to say). On the other hand, some other types of disturbed people might find those pictures highly intriguing.

Mika

[TrashMan]

Well, technicly, there is no real natural selection for humans..even the dumbest, mentally retarded and most unfit are allowed to have children and keep their bad genes in the circulation...
There IS no selection would be a more proper term...everything goes.

[Snail]

Very true.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, technicly, there is no real natural selection for humans..even the dumbest, mentally retarded and most unfit are allowed to have children and keep their bad genes in the circulation...
There IS no selection would be a more proper term...everything goes.

What? Of course there is a natural selection in the process, it's just pronounced to social selection as opposed to getting eaten. Humans are part of nature, as well as our society.

What you mean to say is that the selection pressures on human species have changed so much - especially in rich industrialized countries - that survivability (in nature) is no more the single most important factor in the evolution process, but rather "social aptness", or in language, ability to get laid and have babies to continue their genes. Of course it's still important to survive until the point where you can continue your genes with someone, but unless you're a street kid used to evading pimps and drug dealers and their bullets, survivability in western society almost equals to keeping yourself out of troube and having luck to avoid freak accidents.

Pretty much the same happens to most species that lack a natural enemy and if there's abundance of food... the species' selection process becomes more social than based on brute force and survivability. Hell, the big whales try to literally sing each other to submission to impress the females. If they were to fight, they would likely both get severely injured. Chimps and gorillas have intricate social structures as well. Humans just have changed the life style so that naturally occurring hazards are no longer acting as effective selection methods - the selection for much of human species has become self-inflicted. Even medical conditions previously lethal at young age are now treated to the extent that ill people live long enough to have children (which in itself is a good thing) and pass their potentially illness-prone genotype further in the chain of evolution (which is regrettable). So you can have kids in industrialized country, even if in a hunter-gatherer-society with willow bark and other plants as medicine you would have succumbed to genetic defects long before getting laid.

Obviously, in locations like sub-Saharan Africa, survivability still has a *lot* higher role in the evolution of the species. As well as during pandemic diseases, wars, droughts, accidents and other stuff like that that increases the death rate.

[Nuke]

i wonder how many of theese shootings would be avoided if we would just leegalize suicide

[TrashMan]

current social "selection" = not much of a selection.

Like I said, even retards can pass on their genes.