Agreed. The commentary was flawed from the title. This isn't a very Finnish affair. This so called journalist should just apologise, and Times should apologise on his behalf and have much better editorial review. After the New York Times, another respectable newspaper becomes, in my eyes, good toilet paper.
Agreed. The commentary was flawed from the title. This isn't a very Finnish affair. This so called journalist should just apologise, and Times should apologise on his behalf and have much better editorial review. After the New York Times, another respectable newspaper becomes, in my eyes, good toilet paper.
First, I saw that episode in the tv, long time ago, so I was aware of that. Second, i Don`t think that violent videogames are mentally healthy !
Third. Books, internet and games are pushing "sick" people over the edge in some cases.
Fourth. Finland is, the fourth or fifth most armed country in the world !
Denmark is not figuring at the top 100 list
We only know about weapons in the criminal environment.If one have no gun, you can`t kill people (With a gun). If one can`t read nazi litterature, maby ones insaneness will not grow to much.
We live in a world, where kiddoes kills millions of people in cyberspace. When I watch counterstrike videoes (I have seen a few on Stage6) I notice that everybody wants maximum blood, splattering walls and grounds. Is this sane, that urge to watch blood splatter around you ?
You see, I don`t want videogames banned, but I crave that the parents watch what their children are doing, and eventually talks with them. It can`t be rigth that young people starts their lives, slaugthering people in cyberspace. You can`t make me believe, that that is sound for a young brain !?
Conclusion is. If we had no guns available, no hardcore videogames and no acces to sick litterature, then the world would be a safer place to live in - FOR SURE !!
I would like to see anybody arguing against that statement
EDIT :
http://today.reuters.com/news/ ... C_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
Because you have no wild life to kill, most of our weapons are for hunting.
That is so naive. All history books would probably be on the banned lists too, and the Bible too! They all have blood and guts spilled around, human history is violent. People have been killing each other way before there was literature or moving pictures to take influence from. You simply can not ban history books, or any book, because majority of sane people read them to learn from the mistakes people before have made. That's why you have history lessons in schools!
And who would choose what book is accepted which one is banned? If you give someone that power, it will be used for personal gain and we would go back to middle ages. Next thing would be censor the internet, say a bad word and you are cut off. Freedom of expression is what the civilized world should stand for, it's for the individual to choose who he thinks is wrong who right, and what he thinks is good. That idiot journalist can say what ever he wants, but I think he is writing utter shite. Protecting people with censorship is over reaction, and against everything I believe.
That per capita is quite interesting as an statistic but also it gives somehow wrong image. Finland is not a gun nut nation like United States. The statistics can be explained with long hunting traditions because of high amount of wild life animals (bears, wolfs, elfs). Most of the guns are shotguns and rifles made for hunting purposes. For example weapons with automatic fire are illegal (without modifying).
There are 1,6 million guns (population is 5,3 millions) and estimated 300 000 illegal guns... from which vast majority are most likely old army weapons leading from the World War II still in the possession of people. First of all one CAN'T get a gun license for "self defence". If one aren't part of hunting or shooting club, getting a license is harder. There are few holes in the license laws which this event exposed and I hope those gets fixed.
And for clarification, I'm NOT a gun nut. Just wanted to expain this little bit if the news/statistics has given wrong image. Only time I've touched and fired weapons was in the army (altough, I loved it
).I have killed millions of virtual humans. I have killed zero real humans.
Games, internet, movies... those ALWAYS gets to the spotlight because they are easy subjects to blame when the real problems are underlying in the society, illness of youth, bad mental healthcare and so on. Healthy people don't get influences from these. If games made people mass murderers, all those quarter million Counter-Strike everyday players would be slaughtering people on the nearest shopping mall right now.
If we go to that route, banning everything which might leave "bad influences", soon there wouldn't be many things left in the whole world that were completely innocent and couldn't be used for evil acts... There are people called parents who's job is to make sure kids at too young age doesn't watch horror movies or play Postal 2 game. I don't have kids because I'm not in that age yet.
If humans didn't exist, I'm sure the world would be a lot safer place
...
Kieltolaki, now what that was in more known terms? 
Anyway you remember how goverments did try to stop people from drinking alcohol, then there was quite many deaths and quite lot of violence, I think they made war out from it also.
Simply put, there is about million great philosophies that provide us perfect peaceful life and every each one of them is not going to work. Human being is just too stupid that he could understand what is best for his own good.
I 2nd Blackout, in DK you don't have much to hunt, no big forests etc.
Why I remember seeing news pics from DK cars being on fire at streets and such, I think there was people killed too, not too long ago and I believe there was several cases of such? Surely being without guns looks like to be no better than our world's 3rd highest gun ratio (we are quite low in gun related crime graph
).
If I really would like to get gun, I could get M16 rifle for 500e in few days and only paperwork needed is giving money, so I would say it is much better that getting a gun is kept rather possible, but maybe some kind of doctor's check would be good, but it is better to have registered guns so you can actually narrow suspects etc.
FYI, I'm pretty much pulling your leg here
Anyway you remember how goverments did try to stop people from drinking alcohol, then there was quite many deaths and quite lot of violence, I think they made war out from it also.Simply put, there is about million great philosophies that provide us perfect peaceful life and every each one of them is not going to work. Human being is just too stupid that he could understand what is best for his own good.
I 2nd Blackout, in DK you don't have much to hunt, no big forests etc.
Why I remember seeing news pics from DK cars being on fire at streets and such, I think there was people killed too, not too long ago and I believe there was several cases of such? Surely being without guns looks like to be no better than our world's 3rd highest gun ratio (we are quite low in gun related crime graph
).If I really would like to get gun, I could get M16 rifle for 500e in few days and only paperwork needed is giving money, so I would say it is much better that getting a gun is kept rather possible, but maybe some kind of doctor's check would be good, but it is better to have registered guns so you can actually narrow suspects etc.
FYI, I'm pretty much pulling your leg here
as one guy from penny arcade once put it in one of their podcasts "he was a violent eff of course he played those games"
and i have to agree ... cause and effect alll jumbled up in the media and the minds of seemingly religious people
there was a really stupid thing i heard from a german female priest that ran for bishop a while ago but didnt get the job because of her kid born out of marriage (evangelic so technically she did nothing wrong)
anyway point is that she claimed the military uses these games to desensitze soldiers to killing and she seems like the actually believed that bs
(to put a cherry on top they went on to discuss how wikipedia can be edited by anyone and how it therefore is unreliable ... i wish i had a big [citation needed] sign when she spewed that nonsense about military training simulations)
keep in mind that the blood is the only way to tell if youve hit your opponent or not ... in that respect its a bit like playing lfs with or without force feedback (yes i know apples to oranges but the point is its about feedback from the game not about enjoying seeing blood)
anyone whos ever seen configuration of top quake players will know that the last thing they want is an accurate representation of real world killing on their screens
Prohibition (of alcohol)
I am a simple person, and my simple thoghts says. If you have no gun, you can`t kill another person with a bullet.
I am not after the Finns, or the americans. My only bussiness in this matter is to tell everybody. If you have no gun, you can`t kill no other person, with a gunshot.
And I must admit. I know a lot of people which are hunters. Denmark is a hunting nation. I guess around 200.000 people out of 5.5 million peoples are hunters. I know about 25 of them
believe me, when I say, that 80% of denmark is hunting area This is not about me scolding Finland -This is me scolding GUNS !!
I really like Finland, and sweden, and norway, so that is not the question !! If this has happened in denmark, my reacton would have been the same
NO !!
I love disco music
Ah i didnt check this topic for a while.
I dont agree with you,becouse there are lot of killers in prison,i think thats really not so good,coz its a better life for some of it,free house,free food,and who pays for it? us with paying a lot of tax
get me straight if im wrong
@Alland44, if you ban guns, then you just ban legal guns and it changes nothing, banning guns completely is just impossible, there is always going to be illegal guns.
What we should do is ban people that intend to use guns illegally...
ok but how do we do that?
I seen a talk show that had a prison psychiatrist as a guest. She treated and diagnosed serial killers and various other death row inmates. She said that alot of these serial killers they ran tests on had similar chemical imbalances and high levels of metal (I think aluminum) in their system. She said that research was pretty much limited to just that though. She said that due to laws covering cruel and unusual punishment (here in the US) that they really couldn't pursue this.
LOL they can waterboard a guy that has a cousin that lived next to a guy who had a kid that went to school with a guy that knew this lady that sold coffee to a man that talked to Bin Laden 15 years ago, yet it's illegal to perform diagnostic surgery on a guy that molested and strangled 15 kids to see if there was any sort of identifiable products that the subject may have been exposed to that was the source of whatever toxins that caused the brain imbalance and what types of surgical procedures can be used to prevent or "cure" this from happening again. Or use forms of psychological torture like sleep deprivation and dis information to extract exactly WHAT events in the persons life may or may not have contributed to that person becoming the monster they are. You have to realize most of these people are highly manipulative will most likely be up to some sort of game up to the moment of execution, so just them telling you something about their lives won't be good or accurate enough to determine a identifiable pattern that can be stopped before hand in others.
I do realize that I'm goin on about dealing with serial killers and that the Finnish guy was a mass murderer. I also know that there are big differences between the two types of killers. But there are also alot of similarities as well. another problem with mass murderers are that they are rarely taken alive. I think that if one is ever captured alive that these sorts of things ought to be put to use on the person because all we have now on these types of killings is at best, speculation based on circumstantial evidence that was only taken into consideration after the fact.
Like I seen the columbine video... not THAT one. the ones where the kids taped themselves shooting crap.... there are people out there that are claiming that sort of activity was a dead giveaway to the massacre before hand. Yeah right. Every one I know that owns firearms does that. It's called fungunning or plinking. I really think that most of that comes from the anti-gun crowd that tries to cash in on that to push their agenda though. The point I'm trying to make is to quit focusing so much on the gun and pay more attention to what made the finger pull the trigger of that gun
But that would require actually using brains and that is quite rare in here, also when it happens user of brains is quite likely being punished from something.
Emoidiotism ftw is only way here and god I hate that.
Emoidiotism ftw is only way here and god I hate that.
The bottom line in way sense is that it is a lot easier to kill someone with a gun that with a knife. I remember seeing some document or discussion about this some time ago in TV and it was said that it is a lot harder to kill with a knife or anything "close-range" because then you need to actually physically do it. Anyone who has done hunting knows this. The actual shooring is easy but when you need to "finish it" it gets a lot harder. That is pretty much normal, I guess.
That being said, it is not really a surprise that people kill themselves with guns, I'm talking about suicides now. Individuals who are planning to commit a suicide look for easy and fast way of doing it and if you have a gun, was it a rifle or 120mm airdefense artillery, you will use it just because of that, easy and fast. If you don't have a gun, you jump off from a bridge, drive into a lorry at some highway, stop your car at rail intersection or take medicine and alcohol (I'm actually good at inventing these
).
Guns are the easiest way of killing yourself or others because it is fast, easy and most importantly it is a bit distant in one way. It is the exactly same reasons when you start killing others. Maybe the word I'm looking for is efficiency.
There was a similar incident in Finland few years ago when one guy at the same age made a bomb and blew himself up in a mall. I think it is just the same thing but he didn't have a gun.
That being said, it is not really a surprise that people kill themselves with guns, I'm talking about suicides now. Individuals who are planning to commit a suicide look for easy and fast way of doing it and if you have a gun, was it a rifle or 120mm airdefense artillery, you will use it just because of that, easy and fast. If you don't have a gun, you jump off from a bridge, drive into a lorry at some highway, stop your car at rail intersection or take medicine and alcohol (I'm actually good at inventing these
). Guns are the easiest way of killing yourself or others because it is fast, easy and most importantly it is a bit distant in one way. It is the exactly same reasons when you start killing others. Maybe the word I'm looking for is efficiency
.There was a similar incident in Finland few years ago when one guy at the same age made a bomb and blew himself up in a mall. I think it is just the same thing but he didn't have a gun.
I found this, which contains some interesting statistics :
http://www.bordeglobal.com/for ... index.php?showtopic=15667
Just look at this :
Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
373 people in Germany (1 per 220,995 people)
151 people in Canada (1 per 217,252 people)
57 people in Australia (1 per 350,877 people)
19 people in Japan (1 per 6,706,170 people)
54 people in England and Wales (1 in 1,119286 people)
11,789 people in the United States (1 per 25,085 people)
Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.
CDC National Center for Health Statistics
http://www.bordeglobal.com/for ... index.php?showtopic=15667
Just look at this :
Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
373 people in Germany (1 per 220,995 people)
151 people in Canada (1 per 217,252 people)
57 people in Australia (1 per 350,877 people)
19 people in Japan (1 per 6,706,170 people)
54 people in England and Wales (1 in 1,119286 people)
11,789 people in the United States (1 per 25,085 people)
Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.
CDC National Center for Health Statistics
I think the word you are looking for Hyper is "Impersonal" and I agree its very easy to keep a distance with a gun especially a rifle, just remember the sniper attacks in ther states.
people will always have grudges, illnesses etc and some will always go on to kill thats in some part human nature, arming yourself with a deadly weapon is not.
I partially agree with RacerY that a finger is involved with pulling a trigger, However if you remove the gun from that finger would you not save lives in an easyer way than councilling everyone that owns a gun?
I know that some guns are legitametly used for hunting, and sports and in countrys with better gun laws its alot harder for individuals to purchase or aquire them, and its much harder to buy hollowpoint rounds etc, thats got to help keep the number or killings down.
I just dont get people who say "guns dont kill, people do" because yes people do kill, so why do we have to make it easy for them and provide guns and bullets (how far do you want go imean "guns dont kill, bullets do? or bullets dont kill, loss of blood kills") it all just frustrates me.
SD.
people will always have grudges, illnesses etc and some will always go on to kill thats in some part human nature, arming yourself with a deadly weapon is not.
I partially agree with RacerY that a finger is involved with pulling a trigger, However if you remove the gun from that finger would you not save lives in an easyer way than councilling everyone that owns a gun?
I know that some guns are legitametly used for hunting, and sports and in countrys with better gun laws its alot harder for individuals to purchase or aquire them, and its much harder to buy hollowpoint rounds etc, thats got to help keep the number or killings down.
I just dont get people who say "guns dont kill, people do" because yes people do kill, so why do we have to make it easy for them and provide guns and bullets (how far do you want go imean "guns dont kill, bullets do? or bullets dont kill, loss of blood kills") it all just frustrates me.
SD.
I can only second you !
20 years ago in NYC, a guy went nuts and killed 4 people and injured like 10 others. - he used a samurai sword.
Of course a gun makes doing things like taking out a school easier than a knife. It also makes it easier for me to defend myself than a knife.
A computer with the internet makes things alot easier for ID thieves and child predators. it also makes things easier for me at home by paying bills, solving problems I have with certain projects and other stuff. No one is saying we should ban computers, when in a sense, they are as much of a dangerous weapon as a firearm. LOL those same people that wanna ban firearms would rather we we after the offender instead of the computer.
Also there's a funny thing about the stats used by the CDC. They don't specify out of all those homicides, how many were accidental or how many were in self-defense. They just pile them all together and leave it like that.
Like a few weeks ago, we had something like 8 homicides... well about 4 of them was committed by potential victims protecting themselves.
I live in Texas (yes the gun capital of the world) Just 300 miles south of me is some of the nastiest fighting in the so called drug wars. Now contrary to what the media and the politicians say, that turf war is spilling over from Mexico to here. And again, something that they don't want to admit is a decent armed civilian population is doing a better job at keeping that stuff from really expanding into here than any sort of a law statute or fence can.
Now down in Mexico, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the Northern Hemisphere. Thanks to those laws only the elite and the criminals have access to firearms, leaving the common people unarmed and basically at the mercy of these groups
Let me put this a little bit more simple:
A kid goes off and kills ten fellow students with a hand gun. so we ban handguns.... after that 20 people are killed by others that don't care about that ban. those 20 people were law abiding citizens and were unarmed. Now let's say those 20 people were gun owners that complied with the ban we imposed on them.... Our little gun ban was a contributing factor in their deaths
Now lets say that those people that committed the homicides decide that other laws can be ignored as well. THEN one day they decide that instead of us following OUR laws, that we should follow the ones they make up. What are we going to do?
Give all countries a nuke, that makes the world a safer place because every country then can defend themself... :doh:
And Americans still are baffled why they have to hear so many stereotypes?
And Americans still are baffled why they have to hear so many stereotypes?
I think the line of reasoning is: The world will be a safer place if I get to have more weapons than you.
(See also: Non-proliferation treaty)
I get what you are saying but it goes a bit wrong when you say suggest that you need a gun to protect yourself. About that 20 people example, how many people would have got killed if everyone had a gun? 20 again? Probably, maybe few of them would be the bad guys but mostly it would still be the victims who would die.
Why do criminals carry guns? For security, for self defense, mostly. When they are robbing a bank or raiding houses they carry guns for self defense, or for threat. A killer carries gun to kill, not to defend himself. A criminal becomes a killer when he has a gun pointing at him.
As for the last paragraph for guns and revolution & all... isn't that a bit far fetched? All I can see is that guns that are easy to get will only speed up the process you describe, making your own laws. Every gun nut and nutcake would get a gun and start teh revolution while the rest of us is at work or watching telly with the gun on the table, protecting us.
Guns give false feeling of freedom and safetyness. But on the other hand, living in area with lots of violence and crime is another thing, and I understand how hypocrite all this may sound. It is a different world
Shooting at Finnish School
(97 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG