School Shooting in Tusby, Finland

[Exalt]

As long as guns exsist things like this can happend, but turning this one happening into an argument to keep the laws you have in the states is fucking moronic.

How many school shootings have you had in America vs. the entire Europe?

I can remember 2 in Europe. One in Germany and now this one in Finland.

How many in the US? 15?

who gives a shit? why does everyone in europe always try to mention the US whenever something goes wrong in their countries?

Europe> WEL WEL WEL... THE US DID IT TOO!!

sounds like a fucking child crying about a sibling, its like you need the USA to mess up more than you do for you to feel good about yourself, get over it

[Zerzera]

Zerz. It's not just about owning a gun being the sheer detriment that would supposedly solve, or at least lessen the impact of these events. It's the psychology of it more after. You tend to view everything from the perspective of the hardcore liberal, try taking a a little more from the moderate angle.

Uhm.. I am not a hardcore liberal. Especially not in the discussion with Jerome. I am all for gun control, I think government should take measures to prevent school shootings and I believe that government control has positive influence on these matters... that is far from being liberal. I think you are confusing me with Jerome here.
The pure form of liberalism is anarchy, I -unlike Jerome- think this will not create a happy-joy society, I think that government that enforces social aspects makes a more liveabe society. For that you need a working democracy that is in touch with the people. A real democratic 'leader' would flip-flop in certain issues -because the will of the people is the law and he should suit to their demands- a thing that is condemned in the US lately, making me wonder if it's a real democracy EDIT: at this point in time, who knows what happens in 40 days.

[Kolar]

Zerz. It's not just about owning a gun being the sheer detriment that would supposedly solve, or at least lessen the impact of these events. It's the psychology of it more after.

These people are not your would-be criminals on the streets, they have a different pathology. Opportunity, determent ect.. doesn't enter into it.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Zerz. It's not just about owning a gun being the sheer detriment that would supposedly solve, or at least lessen the impact of these events. It's the psychology of it more after. You tend to view everything from the perspective of the hardcore liberal, try taking a a little more from the moderate angle.

Some might say that this whole concealment deal is going to only make the holders 'trigger happy' at any situation they can use to walk out the 'hero'. The fact of the matter is, those who pass concealment checks are actually quite the opposite.

But do you really WANT guns in the classroom, at all? Seriously? Call me an idealist, but I'm pretty sure a classroom completely without firearms is a better learning environment than a classroom bristling with chrome. I know quite a few teachers who refuse to teach in an environment that's not a "gun-free" university/college of some sort. (Obviously, campus cops carry firearms.)

Ultimately, I think sick people will keep doing this sort of thing unless we address the root of the problem. Is it social? Possibly. Is it psychological? Most likely. I'll be the first to say that I'm not a psychologist, nor an expert in "the criminal mind," but I understand enough to know a simple fact: sick people will do sick things at random times. There's little to nothing that can be done about that. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to mitigate it, but it also doesn't mean that everyone should be carrying around a gun (just in case).

There are rigorous checks for getting a concealed carry license--yes, I agree. But having the means to "end a situation," doesn't necessarily mean that things are going to end up better than they would have without a second person with a gun. I don't want to have to dive under the old saloon table while Johnny Practicerange tries to stop the psycho.

Is that liberal enough?

[Epinephrine]

There's probably nothing you can do about psychopaths who like killing people, and hide this fact for years and plot other people's deaths. What you can do is limit their damage, by making it very hard to obtain weapons that can kill lots of people easily. Weak people with knives can only kill so many. Note that even though Finland has so many guns, this event was not prevented.

Further than that, most gun-related deaths are either accidental (kids playing with parents guns), or are not pre-meditated murder, in which case people get into arguments and since they have guns they use them (usually it is a familial argument such as husband and wife). If there wasn't a gun, they might have just used a knife, their fists or whatever was available, and it would most likely have been less lethal.

So yes, more cars = more accidents, but then again more seat belts and more airbags = less accidents. Perhaps if people don't want 'less guns', maybe mandating powerful safety devices so that it is hard to use a gun on a whim is a better idea.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Because you don't agree with their economical decisions, they must be wrong with the other policies too. Oh your government is so bad.

I think even Epi will tell you that I disagree with policy for reasons other than "disagreeing with their economical decisions". What you're saying might have been valid in the past, but now... kinda pointless. Stop assuming I reached some plateau of knowledge - because you'll find I might be the one here who's learning the most. If your post had any real warrant to it, then the past few months' worth of posts would literally not exist.

The only thing you really make a valid point of is that I am not very intimate with how Finland's government works. Let me think about it... does the government pass laws? Okay, then we've drawn a common thread. And such arguments - top-level, macro arguments about Finland dealing with government action are thus applicable. If I were to be talking about a specific issue - you would be making a valid point if I were to criticize these "GIGO's" or whatever, because it's true that I know shit about them. But give me a few weeks and chances are, I'll be teaching you a thing or two about 'em. I might not raise any flawless points - but I'll certainly make inroads, and get you to start thinking for yourself as well. Win-win. Look at the ongoing debate between epi, kolar, cops and I - they spent alot of time knocking out the bullshit (and it was bullshit), and that just helped me hone in on what really needed to be looked at and discussed.

The method in which I build arguments is not a one-way process. It is true that I do view all things from a common "line" - that is called "perspective". Everything you say or believe in falls victim to the exact same process. Often times yes, people will try to rationalize events into their worldview, and in doing to they must excise small things that are inconsistent. But my analysis is often a two-way process, in which I do attempt to synthesize things into my worldview - but if there is evidence showing a good reason for my worldview to be incorrect, it changes. Constant discussion, refinement, re-application. The goal is to remove contradictions - because a contradictory system will never work.

So yeah. I might not live in Finland, my bad. But go read my posts. You'll see that my view has changed - not sweepingly, but slowly, over time, as I encounter new debates, new ideas, new concepts. Yeah I'm not up to speed on Finnish politics but if you really want to push it - give me your view. Prove to me what makes you so inevitably more correct than I am. I'll read what you have to say, learn the gist of the argument, and proceed to show you how and why you're wrong and things you're failing to see or grasp, and I'll learn more about what I think I know.

Which brings us to the fallacy of composition - just because my overall assertion might not be true- doesn't mean the individual parts of an argument are false.

You're the one who is accepting evidence as a given, or as an ultimate. The problem with this viewpoint is that evidence can be interpreted subjectively. I don't need to show you evidence, I'm merely looking at the same evidence in a different manner - and yes, I do find common threads running through many actions involving government. But far from distorting the truth it actually serves to bring it to a far simpler level. From having debated people on topics ranging many different industries, events, systems, laws and and philosophy/metaphysical aspects of each, there emerges a "big picture" macro level worldview which I find very compelling - as do the people who have time to really see what I'm trying to get across.

I know you think you "get" what makes me tick, and what makes me reach my conclusions, but you don't. Likewise, I don't understand what spontaneous forces led to whatever you believe about the world - but I do understand that spontaneous forces have made us different. Don't tell me I don't understand and then not show why... because as far as I know, then, you're just as in the dark - which is ironic, considering you live in Finland.

So, go on. Tell me exactly how and why I'm wrong. Or throw me questions, evidence, anything you find contradictory to my overall assumptions. I don't dislike knowledge and I seek it out wherever I can.

edit: and the fact that you use the term "liberal"... hilarious

[Ayano]

But do you really WANT guns in the classroom, at all? Seriously? Call me an idealist, but I'm pretty sure a classroom completely without firearms is a better learning environment than a classroom bristling with chrome. I know quite a few teachers who refuse to teach in an environment that's not a "gun-free" university/college of some sort. (Obviously, campus cops carry firearms.)

I'm sorry, didn't I say concealed firearms? You cannot control society, but you can dampen the negative impacts. Tighter gun control will do nothing to prevent the would be criminal from obtaining firearms, it just makes their victims more vulnerable. However in this respect, it would prevent some of these mentally unstable individuals from getting fire arms, but they'll use another avenue if they're serious.

Campus security is limited, easy to tack, easy to record. A would be killer would know this and strike at a weak point to be effective (and these guys aim to kill as many as possible, or kill a select person). The addition of law abiding concealed weapons holders puts a wild card in the mix, everywhere this killer goes he needs to put this into consideration. He can't go off and shoot blindly as he may be taken down and won't be able to fill his 'goal'.

Remember Cho placing locks on those dorms in VT? He effectively isolated his target and bought a large time window from law enforcement.

I'd be happy if even just faculty members could have concealed weapons since they have a quicker response and probably the most sensible minds during such an emergency.

The term 'liberal' has changed in politics, you're referring to classical liberalism.

[Jerome Scuggs]

dude. you're a kid, going to school, and you know your teachers could be packing a gun, even if you didn't see it?

i can see how a hormone-driven teenager might react in a potentially disastrous way to that situation.

[gran guerrero]

dude. you're a kid, going to school, and you know your teachers could be packing a gun, even if you didn't see it?

i can see how a hormone-driven teenager might react in a potentially disastrous way to that situation.

You don't understand me, get out of my life! I hate you!

[Spikester]

It's like the second time something like this has happened in finland and some are even suggesting that the guys behind these two shootings were planning them together.

No laws can help prevent this, people who "hate humanity" or find "humanity overrated" will always find new ways to attain a gun.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I'm sorry, didn't I say concealed firearms?

And the difference between a concealed firearm and a normal, holstered firearm is...? I really don't care if it's concealed, I don't want them there, period. Wholesale.

You cannot control society, but you can dampen the negative impacts.

Agreed. But concealed carry isn't a good way to "dampen" anything. In fact, I'd call it escalation.

Tighter gun control will do nothing to prevent the would be criminal from obtaining firearms, it just makes their victims more vulnerable.

This is a typical argument, but I don't know if I've ever actually seen any studies done on it. If you've got some, I'd be happy to take a look and give it a fair shake. But beyond actually providing examples, this is a "made up" statistic.

However in this respect, it would prevent some of these mentally unstable individuals from getting fire arms, but they'll use another avenue if they're serious.

No joke, right?! Fuck gun rights, I want a license to carry concealed explosives! I mean, how many times must we hear about mentally unstable people blowing people up before we stand up and DO SOMETHING, am I right? It is my constitutional right to be able to use explosives in retaliation to stop a tragedy from happening!

For the most part, I think we agree that "crazed people are going to do crazed things," unless I'm horribly misrepresenting your stance (please correct me if I'm wrong). We both agree that we need to do things to mitigate that risk. We're getting along so well!

The thing that kills me, is that I don't know where people make that jump from "we must limit risk" to "we must let the populace walk around with semi-automatic weapons."

Want to protect yourself? Here's my plan: swords. Everyone can haul around a broadsword on their hip if you want. Or how about this... everyone born in the US gets a crossbow. Want to go hunting? No problem! You've got a crossbow!

[Zerzera]

So, go on. Tell me exactly how and why I'm wrong. Or throw me questions, evidence, anything you find contradictory to my overall assumptions. I don't dislike knowledge and I seek it out wherever I can.

edit: and the fact that you use the term "liberal"... hilarious

I will, there would be no discussion otherwise. But I made an assumption based on your assumptions, if you think I am wrong you should check your premises.


You're right about the fact that governments can do something about it - but incorrect to say completely. Do I believe that these governmental interventions are justified? Not at all. Do I believe that a majority, if not all, of such government intervention produces more problems than solutions? Absolutely.

Please explain this again then. There is no proof of a civilization without a government, and I know that your perfect world isn't without a government. But what should be governed and what not then?


ps: The liberal came from Ayano, it needn't be mentioned.

[Ayano]

This is a typical argument, but I don't know if I've ever actually seen any studies done on it. If you've got some, I'd be happy to take a look and give it a fair shake. But beyond actually providing examples, this is a "made up" statistic.


No joke, right?! Fuck gun rights, I want a license to carry concealed explosives! I mean, how many times must we hear about mentally unstable people blowing people up before we stand up and DO SOMETHING, am I right? It is my constitutional right to be able to use explosives in retaliation to stop a tragedy from happening!

It's the psychology. For perpetrators, that metal chunk they have in their hand is all they need to command power over the situation. Hell, aircraft have been taken over by box cutters . Take that into consideration.


About your rant. I'm basically advocating putting some stopping power into the hands of good Samaritans.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It's the psychology. For perpetrators, that metal chunk they have in their hand is all they need to command power over the situation. Hell, aircraft have been taken over by box cutters . Take that into consideration.

And? How does someone else with a gun change these things, other than escalate an already terrible situation? There's absolutely NO guarantee that even if someone else was armed, that it would end any better. Absolutely none.

About your rant. I'm basically advocating putting some stopping power into the hands of good Samaritans.

Not having a gun doesn't mean that good Samaritans can't step up to the plate. They can, and have done so in the past.

So you'd agree that "Tighter gun control will do nothing to prevent the would be criminal from obtaining firearms, it just makes their victims more vulnerable" is a made-up statistic? That no one's ever actually validated these claims in a scientific fashion? This isn't (dis)proving God--this is something that could actually be tested and verified.

[genocidal]

GUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNZ