I'm in favour of tighter gun controls in places where I think it'd be of benefit, just as I'm in favour of tighter publication controls in places where I think it'd be of benefit. If that means preventing explicit terrorist ideology from being published and removing it from public places, then so be it. Why not? The ends justify the means.

You said that my response doesn't address the contradiction, but I don't think that there is a contradiction.

The importance of their ideological view point is "relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences" — Cavacava

Just to be clear, that's taking my quote out of it's original context, and that's not a true analogy.

It is the same sort of value judgement. We tend to judge an ideological group by the actions of its most radical elements. — Cavacava

If in order to significantly reduce gun crime, tighter controls are required, and if some responsible gun owners miss out as a result, then so be it. That's a price I'm willing to pay.

It's not quite the same with your example of Islam. Guns are weapons designed for harm. Is that true of Islam? Is Islam a religion designed for harm?

We live in the age of progress. Progress has become a secular Ideal. We collectively and individually strive/desire to become richer, healthier, happier, finer people. We see how quickly science has moved, and we desire to advance humanly in a similar manner, with all the trappings that accompany our progress.

This Ideal moves us along, sets a direction which will never end. Keat's says

"Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade."

The mystery of life is lost in our quest for explanations and along with it any sense of acting beyond the pro-functionary necessity of doing what is expected. As we look straight ahead, we lose what is tangential, off to the side. Politeness is a victim of this view, it becomes a hallow token of how we are expected to act, what we are expected to say. It loses its genuine character, y'all.

BC

Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.

Well, supposing along with you. Suppose you go into that same park with a gun handy, and ready. You see someone sitting on that rail fence. You go up and sit next to the person start up a conversation and mention that you have a gun at the ready. You note the obvious consternation in the others face, so you shove off and move along.

I do like the drama you invoke, it is kinda funny that your hypothetical climatic end occurs under "bright street lights" and not in the shadows. :)

Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot." — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, but the consequences of those bad judgements outweigh the consequences of those good judgements. This is evidenced by statistics. Here in the U.K. we have considerably less gun crime, and it isn't because our private citizens or police force is armed, since it's only special units which are armed, and we have very tight gun control. — Sapientia

Whether or not those bad judgements, outweigh the consequences of the good judgements, all depend upon which side of the firearm you find yourself on. ;)

What works in the U.K. does not work everywhere, nor should you or I expect it to. Hell you can see that even as a Nation of States that have United, each State has it's very own philosophy on what will or won't find that balance between allowing people their constitutional rights to own a firearm and keeping that from being seen as a license to use a firearm recklessly.

As BitterCrank suggested the need to own, not just the right, varies WIDELY from State to State, region to region, of our nation. There is a difference between living in Chicago and never seeing a gun except a long barrel Dove hunter kind of gun and then those in uniform who arrive when trouble breaks out. To Arizona, a Western state where a lot of people enjoy the sport of shooting firearms, both hunting and on the range. I imagine BitterCrank rarely has a Javolina and her babies roaming thru his pasture of horses like I occasionally do. But regardless of the difference in locations, owning a firearm is a respected right and one that we as a State, choose to regulate according to a LOT of factors.

I am trying to make the point in this response, that although the USA is one Nation, we are really a Union of fifty individual States. Firearm control is just one of many threads that weave our individual States together as a Nation. Other stratifying threads include but are not limited to State laws on abortion, DUI levels, right to die, providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, land control and management, enforcement of international border controls, cannabis use, ect. Each State makes and enforces their own laws as they see fit and some are in direct conflict with what the Federal Law states they must do.

I don't know how many 'special units' the U.K. has but it sounds like it is relative to the number of unarmed private citizens and your unarmed police force. Sapientia, the very idea of an "unarmed police force" is not viable option here in the USA. To have each State agree that their citizens be required to abandon their personal firearms is like trying to have a group of 'thinkers' agree 100% on a single view. It is just not possible, not wanted and each State chooses it's level of firearm control that it already has in place. Which is rarely acknowledged by those who choose to cast judgement on our gun rights, the fact that there ALREADY are laws controlling the ownership of firearms. The difference is that each State has control of it's own 'control' dial.

I have no problem addressing gun controls in a particular American state, as opposed to the U.S. as a whole. My argument, in essence, remains the same.

Sapientia, the very idea of an "unarmed police force" is not a viable option here in the USA. To have each State agree that their citizens be required to abandon their personal firearms is like trying to have a group of 'thinkers' agree 100% on a single view. It is just not possible, not wanted, and each State chooses it's level of firearm control that it already has in place. Which is rarely acknowledged by those who choose to cast judgement on our gun rights, the fact that there already are laws controlling the ownership of firearms. The difference is that each State has control of it's own 'control' dial. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't agree that it's impossible, but things will stay that way unless there's change. And some things are more important than to depend upon the agreement of a state. If the disagreement of a state prevents justice, then that needs to change. If a state isn't competent enough to turn it's dial in the right direction, then the dial should should be turned for it, and set that way, so that it can't be tampered with so easily.

I believe that there can be progress in the right directon, and I don't think that it's right or productive to just accept the status quo, or worse, actively try to conserve it. It might not be easy, and sacrifices might have to be made, but it's a goal worth pursuing.

One third of Americans own guns; the other two thirds do not. The super-majority (66%) do not have to worry about the government taking their guns away from them. Actually 98% of the the third that own guns don't have to worry about the government either. Unfortunately, they think they do.

The fire under this debate is fueled by the "x" percentage of gun owners whose possession of firearms has the force of a sacrament, and the gun and ammunition manufacturing and sales industry. This industry is against gun control of any kind because it would place a steel ceiling on their growth potential. IF gun control were federal law, 200 million Americans would suddenly not be potential customers. The various manufacturers would have to settle for replacement sales, and very small growth -- mostly in hunting rifles.

Hunting is less popular now than in the previous decades. Vegetarians and PITA can not claim much credit for this. My guess is that easy access to areas where one can hunt available game is less now than in the past. The upper midwest is being overrun by deer, but if you have to fly in from New York City, it's just not convenient. Plus, it can take several outings to bag one.

Maybe about 16% (+/-) of the population (most of the sacramental gun owners) daydream about that glorious day when the government finally shows up on their doorstep to take away their guns (and their porn, drugs, unvaccinated children, unregistered dogs, illegally downloaded Beatles albums, untaxed cigarettes, etc.) and they heroically defend themselves against tanks, black helicopters, ICBMs -- whatever the guv'mint throws at them.

How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wrong question. The question is (a) how much more likely is it that the 40 armed citizens will include a mass murderer intent on a gun massacre? And (b) what is the likelihood that a bunch of armed untrained people will wind up shooting innocent people rather than the shooter?

We know the answer. By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd.

First, because gun maniacs don't care if they get killed, so they'll have shot dozens of people before anybody turns a gun on them (unless you expect ordinary "armed citizens" to carry loaded cocked guns in their hands at all time). A man intent on killing others can walk up to a person with a holstered gun and blow his brains out before he even knows what's happening. And the idea that armed citizens are going to be constantly ready for an attack is scarier than having them unready. They'll be shooting people by mistake left and right.

And second, more to the point, when real gun violence occurs, untrained ordinary "armed citizens" usually freeze up and do nothing or they shoot an innocent person because gun violence is so disorienting. No untrained person -- and I mean anybody who doesn't have constant military training, day in day out -- can react rationally to a man suddenly pulling out a gun and shooting people down, with blood spurting everywhere.

To claim otherwise is simply magical thinking. We have the studies. Wonderfully, it's called "Killology". It is almost impossible for an untrained person to react in any useful way to a gun massacre. Only a trained soldier can. Anybody who claims otherwise has seen too many Rambo films.

Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.

I disagree with your trust in armed citizens and refuse to let my safety and the safety of my children depend on the judgement of gun nuts -- and that's what armed citizens are: gun nuts. They are insecure and untrustworthy. Almost all of them should be in jail before they harm themselves or others.

What I most despise about the whole gun ownership/ gun legislation issue is the way it is handled, actually universally in the West (both here and there). And that is that gun rules are never, ever discussed or handled at normal circumstances in a normal way as some other legislation might be formed. No, the gun controls are allways rushed in after an ugly incident which has caught the media's attention. The reason is logical, after some attrocity (with guns involved) the majority of the people that are not gun owners and hence the matter doesn't actually matter to them (it's not their property or hobby etc. that is talked about) are quite emotional about the event and prone to accept tighter gun laws. When there isn't an ugly incident in their minds, the majority might not be so open to tighter government control.

So has happened here in Europe after the Paris attacks. Avoid of any serious media scrutiny, the EU is now banning virtually all semiautomatic weapons including, even deactivated ones, and rushing this legislation through on lightning speed. It's not a ban on selling them anymore, but a ban that all weapons now would be confiscated. As an active reservist in my country (who doesn't own any guns myself), I know that this will severely effect the ability for reservists to train either themselves or to train shooting in voluntary reserve training, with reserve organizations or in the courses of the National Defence Training Association of Finland. And pity the 2 000 gun collectors in this small country. Actually only my country Finland and the Czech Republic have complained about this (see article: Finland files reservations about EU semi-automatic firearm ban) with Sweden also complaining about the consequences it will have on hunting (something that Finland worries too).

The reason is simple. Central Europeans don't hunt. Shooting isn't a popular hobby. Nor do the countries have a reservist armies. When a potentially large voting segment doesn't own guns, gun laws can be done the way the anti-gun lobby wants. And implemented when a terrorist strike or similar shooting takes place. Gun owners are seen as gun nuts, as Landru said.

Perhaps for people to understand this, think about that there should be legislation and laws passed on large kitchen knives. Really, it's an important issue:

They are very dangerous and a lot of people are killed by kitchen knives and knives in general. The statistics are likely to be awful. Even Bitter Crank here was assaulted/mugged with a knife. A lot of accidents happen with them too. Hence people should have mandatory training. People who have a criminal record of assault or have severe mental problems or are linked with terrorist groups should not have the ability to buy knives that can easily kill a human being. How should this be implemented? Having a licence. Having regulation. Here's how:

- Official never, ever talk about "kitchen knives" or "knives" but refer only to cold weapons. Knives are cold weapons and to talk about weapons gives the correct attitude towards these lethal objects. The discourse, the words that are used, is important!

- Start with the largest cold weapons that people don't have: swords, machetes and so on. Basically people have a negative view towards machetes or the small switchblades. Once they are banned or regulated, you can start building the legislation.

- Push the cold weapons legislation through when a gruesome murder or manslaughter happens with these cold weapons. Especially if children are killed or maimed intentionally or accidentally, use this to get through the legislation. Show pictures of mutilated people from Rwanda genocide and tell how that was done by cold weapons.

- Attack those who say that this kind of legislation is government interference, nanny-state actions or that the "knives are part of life in the kitchen". Denounce this attitude as ignorant, old fashioned and simply dangerous. People have to understand how dangerous to society cold weapons are.

- Pay some well known chefs to promote the legislation and to show just how easy it's to get this licence and how much it can help in fighting domestic violence and crime ...and terrorism. Also have people interviewed in television commercials that have been attacked by cold weapons and who's story is very sad. Have slogans like "The scars tell the truth... support cold weapon legislation!"

I used to find the rudeness on the old PF very upsetting sometimes. I wonder if Paul had implemented a kind of laser option that shot out of users webcams and blinded them if they were rude, and members could sort of 'shoot' each other, PF would have been a more polite place.

Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same.

By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd. — Landru Guide Us

I think the 'not' is a typo. I agree with your post by the way.

Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same. — bert1

Yes, but like I've said, this should nevertheless be a price that we should be willing to pay for the greater good. My sympathy only goes so far. Those who are unwilling to let go are part of the problem. If there are obstacles in the way of vital progress, then we should be looking at how best to overcome them.

Indeed, I agree with you.

I doubt that an armed citizen has the ability to shoot accurately in a tense situation let alone in a fire fight. It's no easy thing to use a handgun and hit even a stationary target. A moving target is difficult to shoot consistently even with a scattergun. A moving target shooting at you or people around you will be very hard to hit. Training is required to disable a shooter, and few citizens will bother obtaining it even if it is available.

Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target.

An annual breakdown of NYPD “Gunfight” hit-ratio data is differentiated in the table
below.

NYPD GUNFIGHT STATISTICS
Year| Hit percentage
1990 19%
1991 15%
1992 17%
1993 15%
1994 12%
1995 18%
1996 14%
1997 10%
1998 25%
1999 13%
2000 9%
MEAN SCORES 15%

That's a snippet from the report up there. It shows hit percentage in a firefight, meaning the officer believed his enemy also had a firearm (they don't necessarily have to have a weapon, belief is enough to drop the hit-percentage), with the year for the NYPD. Everything I've looked at tells a similar story. ((One of the many reasons why arming teachers in schools is one of the worst ideas to ever be broached))

Remarkable. I recall something about 9 innocent bystanders being hit by an officer of the NYPD not long ago. Strange how law enforcement on TV and in the movies seem to have little trouble blowing the bad guys away. Can it be we're being misled? Someone I know has a 357 revolver and one day we spent some time shooting at, and mostly missing, an empty plastic gallon milk bottle. I couldn't believe what a bad shot I was. Maybe I'm better than I thought; a frightening prospect.

What I most despise about the whole gun ownership/ gun legislation issue is the way it is handled, actually universally in the West (both here and there). And that is that gun rules are never, ever discussed or handled at normal circumstances in a normal way as some other legislation might be formed. No, the gun controls are allways rushed in after an ugly incident which has caught the media's attention. The reason is logical, after some attrocity (with guns involved) the majority of the people that are not gun owners and hence the matter doesn't actually matter to them (it's not their property or hobby etc. that is talked about) are quite emotional about the event and prone to accept tighter gun laws. When there isn't an ugly incident in their minds, the majority might not be so open to tighter government control. — ssu

In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base.

Here's a concept: if knives are so effective, let's ban guns and everybody who wants to carry knives can do so (they can do so now). You can feel safe and sound carrying your knife. Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

But let's be clear, banning guns will not end violent crimes against individuals. People will also find a way to kill cheating husbands, rich aunts and unpleasant neighbors. What it will end (as the UK and Australian bans show) is gun massacres. And gun massacres are crimes against the entirety of society, not against particular individuals. That's reason enough to ban guns.

Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target. — Moliere

"It's really hard to shoot a man, especially if he's shooting back" - Little Bill, Unforgiven.

Yep. The notion that "armed citizens" untrained and unready for a gun fight are going to calmly draw their guns and shoot down bad guys is preposterous. Most will do the natural things - freeze and pee their pants. Some will shoot their foot. Some will confusedly shoot anybody near by.

Studies show that normal people in a gun fight simply are not cognitively capable of calmly doing anything. Only highly trained people (soldiers) and abnormally homicidal people do well. Needless to say, the last thing we need is more psychopaths with guns.

In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base. — Landru Guide Us

There isn't an "ugly incident" here about once a week, and there definately isn't a terrorist attack every week, so you remark is off base. But tightening of gun control does happen systematically when there is a media frenzy about something. Those events happen more rarely than once a year or two.

Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?

And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.

Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers. — Landru Guide Us

Landru the chairfighter.

An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?

There isn't an "ugly incident" here about once a week, and there definately isn't a terrorist attack every week, so you remark is off base. But tightening of gun control does happen systematically when there is a media frenzy about something. Those events happen more rarely than once a year or two. — ssu

Yes, there is in fact a mass gun killing about once a week in the US. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But we have mass killings every week. It doesn't have to be a Columbine to be a mass killing.

As to terrorism, it's almost always carried out with guns.

So my offer stands, let's ban guns and you can feel save clinging to your knife. It doesn't bother me, so I'm perplexed why you're trying to argue that I should be more worried about knives than guns. If you're sure knives are so effective, you shouldn't care if we ban guns.

Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?

Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument.

And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.

Great, let's ban guns in the US.

An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?

Hey look kids, a non sequitur that has nothing to do with lone killers wrecking havoc on our society!.

Back to the issue. If you think knives are so great, you can keep yours. Let's ban guns and you can cling to your knife for security. Frankly, if somebody attacks a group of people in a theater with a knife, they'd look funny when it wound up sticking out of their ear. But like I say, if you're so convinced knives are so dangerous, you shouldn't mind if we ban guns.

So I say again, banning guns stops gun massacres - the UK and Australian experience proves that. And that's reason enough to ban guns. Those so insecure that they can't go to Starbucks without a weapon, you can cling to a knife.

Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument. — Landru Guide Us

For a country that isn't in NATO, has mandatory conscription and the defence forces' deterrence comes basically from the large reserve force, it's a totally reasonable argument. Totally reasonable when basically every tenth Finnish male is a reservist (and more are in the secondary reserve, at the largest you are talking about 900 000 people out of 5+ million people).

Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.

I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about.

"I am a believer in that an armed society, is a polite society"

What a pecular notion...that only under the threat of violence are people civil.

I disagree.
People are civil in spite of the threat of violence...not because of it.

For a country that isn't in NATO, has mandatory conscription and the defence forces' deterrence comes basically from the large reserve force, it's a totally reasonable argument. Totally reasonable when basically every tenth Finnish male is a reservist (and more are in the secondary reserve, at the largest you are talking about 900 000 people out of 5+ million people).

Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.

I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about. — ssu

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't care what Finland does. But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US.

I don't care what Finland does. — Landru Guide Us

That's obvious.

And your point is that "Ban guns and we don't have gun massacres": that some loonie cannot shoot and kill randomly innocent people, because he could buy a gun at the nearest supermarket. And naturally you don't give a damn what other effects a total gun ban would have. Who cares about the gun nuts. Who cares about the technical details, ban them all. Stop gun massacres.

Yet your point actually exactly shows my point: this is the way how gun legislation is discussed and focused. Exactly through "gun massacres". The truth is that these highly publisized tragedies are, as you Landru unintentionally show, the way the whole thing is discussed. Far more realistic debate would actually look at how and where the majority of accidents and lethal use of guns happen. It's been discussed in earlier threads quite well.

But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US. — Landru Guide Us

Strawman Landru. Feel safe with your nuclear deterrence.

The ability to use one's personal weapon is a basic and fundamental ability to any soldier. And there simply aren't enough refresher excersizes given by the armed forces, which the defence minister has acknowledged (statistically a reservist selected to frontline combat troops will be called only once to a refresher excersize after the conscript duty in the 5-10 years he or she is deployed to those frontline units). Voluntary training is important. So apparently by Landru's thinking both the interior minister and the defence minister here are gun nuts and whacky rightwing militia candidates, as the both have firmly objected the EU plan.

Anyway, my point is that gun legislation is far more complex issue, as the Finnish example shows with the EU ban. Bans shouldn't be hastily applied right after a dramatic event with few if any preparations without any thoughts on just what the effects will be at large. Yet this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be restrictions at all on gun ownership. The whole thing is a bit similar on how "anti-terrorism laws" are pushed through also. Right immediately after a terrorist attack without any debate on what kind of effect they will have on personal liberties.

Surely there's a way for Finnish reservists to get sufficient training without relaxing gun controls to the extent that they're as easily obtainable as they are in places like the U.S.A.

Surely there's a way for Finnish reservists to get sufficient training without relaxing gun controls to the extent that they're as easily obtainable as they are in places like the U.S.A. — Sapientia

It's not about relaxing the present gun control, it's about the banning of now legal guns that is the problem here. People would be fine with the current controls. Relaxing gun controls is something I don't recall ever happening. Nobody has ever purposed having similar gun laws here as in the US. Not even the "gun nuts" here.

Besides, Finnish gun controls are far more stricter than anything in the US. Here's a discription of how you get a gun permit here.

First, one simply cannot get a permit for a "military like" semi-automatic rifle (which the EU now wants to ban) as your first gun permit. No way. Likely what will go through is something like a .22 calibre sporting rifle (or pistol). And to get even that one is difficult: If you have any kind of criminal record, anything in your youth even without violent behaviour etc, it's likely you will not get any permit. A handgun permit is obtainable only after 20 years of age and if you can show that you have already practiced shooting for two years. You have to provide evidence for the police of either your hunting or shooting hobby (for example a hunting licence) and provide details just where you are going to practice shooting or hunt. Basically you need to show that you belong to some hunting club or shooting club and have endorsements from these organizations. After this you have to pass a feasability test with 260 questions looking at your suitability, your psychological feasability and your appropriateness to have guns. Any kind of mental problems (or anything similar) will stop you from obtaining a license. Sometimes even being overweight can be looked as a problem... or something as irrational. Here there is much confusion on just what makes a person "feasable" to have a gun permit and what not. The police will interview you twice. Then you have to go and show the actual gun that you have bought to the police. After this you will get a permit for two years or so. If you do something stupid in those two years, you'll lose the gun permit. You have then to apply for a continuation of the permit.

As it's difficult to get these licences, hence one option has been to train shooting in a reservist organization or in the courses National Defence Training Association of Finland (MPK), which provides supplemental military training for all citizens above 18 years. Might sound strange at first, but this comes from the Finnish constitution: the constitution here states that every citizen has the obligation to defend the country. Before this meant that basically any 18 year old Finnish citizen could go to the courses of the National Defence Training Association and get military training and even shoot a full automatic assault rifle of the Finnish army (usually not on full auto). But after a school shooting incident, which didn't have anything to do with the association or this kind of training, this was stopped. Still semi-automatic rifles are still used with courses with reservists. The EU ban will stop any kind of training either individual gun owners, with reservist organizations or with the National Defence Training Association, that basically trains about 34 000 people every year in it's courses, basically the same number or more than the armed forces trains reservists in refresher excersizes.

Here's a video of women (that likely haven't gone to the military, likely many that are thinking about voluntary service) getting training in handling wounded in a course of the defence training association. They are issued with Finnish army assault rifles without magazines (alongside full military gear). Earlier they likely would have had the chance to shoot them using real bullets during the course.

If the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? And if gun controls are already tight enough in Finland, then this isn't even an issue, or at least a different issue to the main issue under discussion.

So if all the guns and ammo were to disappear tomorrow, the rate of murder might not change all that much. The white southerners and the black sons of the south living in northern ghettos would continue to kill each other, with knives probably, at the same high rate as they do with guns. At least there would be fewer bystanders killed. — Bitter Crank

I agree with much of what you've said here, but I don't know if I'd apply the same cultural influences to everyone in the South. The Celtic culture has been blamed for the southern violence, which was most notable in Appalachia after the Civil War.

It seems a stretch to blame black violence in the north on their southern roots from hundreds of years prior. It's also hard to associate black violence with the Southern Celtic culture because the Celtic culture and southern black culture were not intertwined. The black population was centered in the plantation regions and not in the poor mountain regions where the Celtic culture was. Appalachia is overwhelmingly white and extremely poor (other than the city folk who have bought vacation mountain cabins).

I also have a problem relating gun violence in rural communities with urban violence in cities. The former arises over exaggerated honor and pride and the latter over money and drugs.

But, I do agree that the South is a particularly violent region, which likely has as much to do with historical educational failings, racial disparity, and poverty than anything else. That being said (and I've not looked at the figures), I would suspect that over time the South's numbers will improve because of major population shifts southward.

↪ssu If the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? — Sapientia

The example here is how gun controls are done: a EU-level ban instituted and to be pushed through in a few weeks with no public discussion. It's not yet law, so it's not about relaxing laws. It's the similar antics how tough "anti-terrorist laws" are put through, that likely don't have much effect on actual counter-terrorism measures, and people find about them only when they are already a law. Here that several countries themselves made it public is the only reason why the ban is known.

And if gun controls are already tight enough in Finland, then this isn't even an issue, or at least a different issue to the main issue under discussion. — Sapientia

Actually it does.

It goes to the real question of just what is an armed society? What's the reason for a society to be armed? To defend against whom? I think it's interesting to view the subject from the international point of view, and not just focus in the US. The US has quite a unique and very different culture starting with the second amendment, and the interesting interpretation of it, it is so totally different from other countries. The US idea starts from the individuals defence, at least nowdays, and not a collective defence. Because there are obvious differences, but also similarities, it's interesting to view other countries (even if I can understand some don't care a damn about other places). For example in Israel the officials/politicians have really thought of easing gun laws to help defend the Jewish community from terrorist attacks (see here.)

Switzerland has a genuine militia system and the government has issued assault rifles to it's reservists to be kept at their home. Earlier they even had ammunition. These Swiss army rifle consist about over half of all weapons that the Swiss people have. And the crime statistics are totally different from the US. So are homicides or even accidents with firearms.

(Carrying rifles in Switzerland, in back without magazines)


(Open carry in the US: rifle in hand, magazine on and finger close to the trigger as patrolling a combat zone...)


Yet have mass shootings happened in Switzerland? Yes. Have they happened here in Finland? Yes, here twice with the two shooters perhaps even knowing each other, both having mental problems and the first one being obsessed with the Columbine shootings. (Before that nothing in history) Yet when deciding on gun laws, should they really be made to prevent something as seldom happening as a mass shooting and even terrorist strikes, which use illegal guns?

The example here is how gun controls are done: a EU-level ban instituted and to be pushed through in a few weeks with no public discussion. It's not yet law, so it's not about relaxing laws. It's the similar antics how tough "anti-terrorist laws" are put through, that likely don't have much effect on actual counter-terrorism measures, and people find about them only when they are already a law. Here that several countries themselves made it public is the only reason why the ban is known. — ssu

There was an "if". I asked: if the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed (by having the law reversed/reformed) in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? You didn't directly answer my question.

As for how gun controls are "done", I think whether or not they work, and how well, is more important.

It goes to the real question of just what is an armed society? What's the reason for a society to be armed? To defend against whom? — ssu

An armed society is a society that's armed. The following questions are more relevant and interesting, but I was more concerned with whether or not gun controls ought to be tightened in places where the current gun controls are arguably not tight enough. Although I suppose that kind of relates to the sort of questions that you asked above.

Yet have mass shootings happened in Switzerland? Yes. Have they happened here in Finland? Yes, twice with the two shooters perhaps even knowing each other, both having mental problems and the first one being obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Yet when deciding on gun laws, should they really be made to prevent something as seldom happening as a mass shooting and even terrorist strikes, which use illegal guns? — ssu

Yes. Preventing mass shootings and terrorist strikes is definitely a goal worth pursuing. Like Landru Guide Us, I'm considerably less sympathetic to the woes of Finnish reservists than I am to those affected by mass shootings and terrorist strikes.

You didn't directly answer my question. — Sapientia

Well, if it went through as now, which basically means that Finland or the Czech Republic or Sweden that have problems with it would be overruled, then Finland could ask for an exception. Because it's very unlikely that the Finnish Parliament would accept to ratify it, as now the administration has been against it in it's now form. Then the EU could object that.

(What has to be understood is that Finland isn't at all being totally against the new EU gun laws rushed now in on the wake of the Paris attacks, but only certain aspects of it. Hence it's not in the position, or it doesn't want, to stop the process altogether. Laws can be different in EU countries.)

Does that answer your question?

I was more concerned with whether or not gun controls ought to be tightened in places where the current gun controls are arguably not tight enough. Although I suppose that kind of relates to the sort of questions that you asked above. — Sapientia

First you should ask what is your intention with tightening the gun controls.

I personally find it a bit confusing to focus on such rare events like mass shootings, because the vast majority of shootings happen in totally different circumstances. Most likely a fatal shooting is a suicide. And if we look at the US, apart from the homicide rate, what I find is more worrisome is the high level of firearm accidents and accidental shootings in the US. That is way over the accident numbers in other countries. Hunting accidents are at a normal level (even with Dick Cheney there), hence the high accident levels simply happen because a lot of people have handguns for their personal defence in the house and guns are loaded. I would consider legislation that handles the actual reality of the most likeliest tragedies and problems and not the few cases of lunatics going on a shooting spree, which has more to do with the media coverage and mental health care system.

And If 1 700 people are murdered in the US using cold weapons (knives etc.) compared to the 6 000 with handguns, then are those 1 700 unimportant? Having legislation on cold weapons, training courses, etc. will definately have some effect to lower the statistics. Training would improve just how people use them (and hence lower accidents). But then are you personally willing to pay for a licence and a training course to buy a new kitchen knife? The reason here, is that kind of legislation would affect everybody, Landru and you, and not only the gun owners. In today's world it's so easy to ban or limit something that hasn't got any effect on your own property.

Preventing mass shootings and terrorist strikes is definitely a goal worth pursuing. — Sapientia

Preventing terrorist strikes will not happen by gun laws.

Like Landru Guide Us, I'm considerably less sympathetic to the woes of Finnish reservists than I am to those affected by mass shootings and terrorist strikes. — Sapientia

Well, I don't live there and what does American gun legislation effect me here in Northern Europe? And why should then terrorist attacks in France or mass shootings in the US have an effect here on training of the military? I think the gun laws should be decided by country-by-country. That's the basic reason for have nations in the first place.

And If we have had here two actually "mass shootings" with combined number of eight deaths and nothing else ever, basically one event of America inspired copycats, both using a .22 handgun (similar type used in Columbine), is then the prevention of that the actual focus of gun legislation? Gun laws were tightened after that (with feasability tests). Yet every fourth household has a legal gun and there are 1,6 million legal guns and only 5 million people. Why then the 20 000 semi-automatic rifles owned by the people or reservist organizations pose after Paris such a mortal threat? Or the thousands of deactivated military rifles hanging as memorabilia on people's walls?

Besides, I view it as a good thing here that the government somehow still trusts it's citizens to take on such a huge role in something like defence and have voluntary military training. It's very rare in our modern world where government or the state is simply viewed just a provider of services through taxes (and debt finance) that is then done by paid workers. Reservists here do have a major role with about 95% of the wartime forces being them and not professional soldiers.

Legislation made in a rush, that hasn't gone the ordinary way through hearings usually ends up being very bad. We already have had even here the influence of the "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act". Because basically now according to legal experts the worst thing ever you can do in Finland, which can give you the most time in jail, isn't a mass murder rampage, but actually giving financial support to terrorist organizations. This kind of hilarious consequence that multiple first degree murder basically you get less jail time than for giving money to a terrorist organization just shows the confusion when these pushed through and not well thought laws.

An armed society is a polite society, as long as there are no parking disputes