NationStates Jolt Archive

Finland is raising the age for buying guns from 15 to 18 because of the recent shooting. Nevermind that the shooter was (surprise!) 18 at the time.

*sigh*

Finland is raising the age for buying guns from 15 to 18 because of the recent shooting. Nevermind that the shooter was (surprise!) 18 at the time.

*sigh*

Indeed, silly.

What people should be listening to is the fact that this kid put out a video on youtube BEFORE he did it.

They took the Video down and alerted NO ONE of the fact that he not only had a gun, but the intent to carry this out.

Indeed, silly.

What people should be listening to is the fact that this kid put out a video on youtube BEFORE he did it.

They took the Video down and alerted NO ONE of the fact that he not only had a gun, but the intent to carry this out.
*Has the gift!

I would like to add that I support gun control in the country I live in.

If I moved to the US, I would not support gun control, as the social upheaval would take time and there is no reason to push it through by law until society itself perceives it as unnecessary to own a gun.

All right, so a silly response, but should people under 18 really be able to buy guns?

understandable.

All right, so a silly response, but should people under 18 really be able to buy guns?

Should people OVER 18 be able?

Should people OVER 18 be able?

Of course, if they're a law-abiding citizen.

They guy got the guns from a 15 year old. So yay, good move Finland.

They guy got the guns from a 15 year old. So yay, good move Finland.

No. The guy shot at a shooting range and had a license to own firearms, according to local newspapers around where I live (not Finland). He owned his own gun. Now I don't feel like confirming this, but I am wondering where you heard that.

It should have been 18 anyway, but it's stupid that they're responding in this way.

Well it's nice to know my government isn't the only one capable of making "feel good", do nothing policies as a knee jerk reaction after a tragic event.

I say, lets pick an age. It needs to be the same age that shall be legally defined as "adulthood". Once an "adult", ytou can do all the lovely things children cant. Drink, smoke, screw, shoot, and vote!

Whooohooo!

Better yet, move to America where we can do all of it at once! In my state we call it "Deer Season!"

Woooo for drunken hunting!!!!

I say, lets pick an age. It needs to be the same age that shall be legally defined as "adulthood". Once an "adult", ytou can do all the lovely things children cant. Drink, smoke, screw, shoot, and vote!

I agree...an age should be defined...but if we include bow hunting as a defining element, the age could very well be 12...

Whooohooo! Better yet, move to America where we can do all of it at once! In my state we call it "Deer Season!" Woooo for drunken hunting!!!!

I can't wait until Turkey Day...I'm so sick of Bow Hunting...

Should people OVER 18 be able?Generally speaking; of course.

What a strange question to ask. Just out of curiousity, are you a slave, Heikoku? Or perhaps a child?

Why not let a 16 year old buy a gun, if there responsible, why not? When I was 16 I was issued an assault rifle, a machine gun (two different ones, actually), was taught how to operate rocket launchers, recoiless rifles, claymores, pistols, etc. It was called the army (reserve), and I knew plenty of other 16 year olds who would be perfectly responsible with them. Then again, I knew others who wouldn't, but the fact is, the vast majority of people can have a gun and not shoot anyone, then theres a select few who will go and kill someone. But then again, if they couldn't buy a gun legally, they'd buy it illegaly, or they'd build one, or they'd build a bomb, and likely kill more people than they would have with a gun. People are the problem, not inanimate objects. Sad to see this knee-jerk response.

Well, considering that in most countries people have to be 18 to vote, because they're not seen as being mature enough until that age, why anyone under that age should be buying guns is a mystery.

Yes, I know that teenagers, as long as they're properly taught, can handle firearms properly, but it does seem to be a double standard: mature enough to buy a gun, not mature enough to vote.

So I think Finland made the right move.

we dont all have guns in civilised countries

finland should go all the way and join the civilised county list

:):):):):):)

Should people OVER 18 be able?


I assume this is a joke response so I will continue with shouldn't we ban everything that is sharp and oh wait all blunt objects too. People just can't be trusted with having something in their hands.

we dont all have guns in civilised countries

finland should go all the way and join the civilised county list

:):):):):):)

The looney tunes eh?

Finland is raising the age for buying guns from 15 to 18 because of the recent shooting. Nevermind that the shooter was (surprise!) 18 at the time.

*sigh*
If you don't mind, please provide a source for this. I would find one myself, but I have a massive headache... Thanks

EDIT; In fact, you know what - I call Bullshit straight away. A person under 18 can't buy a (reaL) gun here as it is, so...

If you don't mind, please provide a source for this. I would find one myself, but I have a massive headache... Thanks

EDIT; In fact, you know what - I call Bullshit straight away. A person under 18 can't buy a (reaL) gun here as it is, so...

Thanks for clarifying that because it didn't seem to pass the smell test.

Thanks for clarifying that because it didn't seem to pass the smell test.

Yeah, well, a 15 year old can buy a gun in his name if his/her parents have agreed for it and he has a police permit for it. She/he can't just go to the local gun kiosk and buy one by him/herself.

15? :eek: it was a really low age to let people buy a gun...

If you don't mind, please provide a source for this. I would find one myself, but I have a massive headache... Thanks

EDIT; In fact, you know what - I call Bullshit straight away. A person under 18 can't buy a (reaL) gun here as it is, so...

You too? Suffering a bad case of hangover in Helsinki...

Anyways, Finland is the only country in EU where teenagers (16) can legally own and use guns (for hunting). This was a hot topic long before this Auvinen case.

You too? Suffering a bad case of hangover in Helsinki...

Anyways, Finland is the only country in EU where teenagers (16) can legally own and use guns (for hunting). This was a hot topic long before this Auvinen case.

You can use guns under 18 in the states. Different states have different laws on the fact that you would have to be with an adult while hunting. Seeing how Finland is basically wilderness with some people in it would make sense that kids can use guns. I am sure many people hunt there.

As far as being 18 to own guns. My son has better gun control and gun sense then some of my friends I have taken out to the gun range/gravel pit. I don't know how many times I have had to teach basic gun safety to adults. It's best to teach when they are kids anyway. Kids listen better then adults when it comes to guns and learning the proper way to use them.

Finland's particular law.
Putting ones name on a weapon with "parents" permission is really in essence an 18yr old buying age anyway.

Finland is raising the age for buying guns from 15 to 18 because of the recent shooting. Nevermind that the shooter was (surprise!) 18 at the time.

*sigh*Yeah, that is silly. They raised it to 21 over here after the Erfurt shootings.

You can use guns under 18 in the states. Different states have different laws on the fact that you would have to be with an adult while hunting. Seeing how Finland is basically wilderness with some people in it would make sense that kids can use guns. I am sure many people hunt there.

As far as being 18 to own guns. My son has better gun control and gun sense then some of my friends I have taken out to the gun range/gravel pit. I don't know how many times I have had to teach basic gun safety to adults. It's best to teach when they are kids anyway. Kids listen better then adults when it comes to guns and learning the proper way to use them.

Finland's particular law.
Putting ones name on a weapon with "parents" permission is really in essence an 18yr old buying age anyway.

The problem is that there isn't enough hunters. The ones who hunt are getting older and the younger generation isn't that keen anymore. We do live in the wilderness and as long as we keep the beasts away we have to do the killing ourselves. I couldn't shoot an animal but I do realise that hunting (elks) is necessary.

Finland is raising the age for buying guns from 15 to 18 because of the recent shooting. Nevermind that the shooter was (surprise!) 18 at the time.

*sigh*
It's a question of an EU wide directive banning underage gun ownership which Finland formerly opposed....Due to the history of the shooter the government decides to be seen as doing something and decides to stop opposing the directive.


I'm actually for this descision because at the age of 18 every finnish male is entitled to a paid weapons handling & training course lasting at least 6 months called compulsory military service :cool:

I assume this is a joke response so I will continue with shouldn't we ban everything that is sharp and oh wait all blunt objects too. People just can't be trusted with having something in their hands.

Your assumption is wrong. The fact is, most countries which restrict guns - England, Japan, to name a few - have lower crime rates than the ones that don't.

Generally speaking; of course.

What a strange question to ask. Just out of curiousity, are you a slave, Heikoku? Or perhaps a child?

No, I'm not a slave and I'm certainly not a child. Why you assume either remains a mystery. People over 18 don't get guns neither in the UK nor in Japan; are those people slaves? Are their lawmakers children?

You work under the assumption that a populace with rifles could do anything against an army with tanks should your government ever become tyrannic. Not to mention the assumption that the tyranny won't be SUPPORTED by many or even most people with guns.

I can honestly say I don't trust 18 year olds with guns let alone any younger

I don't even trust myself with the things but thats because I'm bad with them

Obviously this massacre was justified because as we know, individual freedom extends to the ability to shoot people in the head - and a government stopping people from doing this is overbearing and tyrannical.

Obviously this massacre was justified because as we know, individual freedom extends to the ability to shoot people in the head - and a government stopping people from doing this is overbearing and tyrannical.It was? We do? It is?

Your assumption is wrong. The fact is, most countries which restrict guns - England, Japan, to name a few - have lower crime rates than the ones that don't.

"Most"?

Fine let's play this game again.

Russia, Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa.

No, I'm not a slave and I'm certainly not a child. Why you assume either remains a mystery. People over 18 don't get guns neither in the UK nor in Japan; are those people slaves? Are their lawmakers children?

You work under the assumption that a populace with rifles could do anything against an army with tanks should your government ever become tyrannic. Not to mention the assumption that the tyranny won't be SUPPORTED by many or even most people with guns.

I guess that's why the Russians are still in Afganistan then.

I guess that's why the Russians are still in Afganistan then.

No, instead they were driven away for several reasons up to and including war weariness and lack of equipment and the fundies there used those guns to stage a coup, made the place into a dystopia and ended up causing 9-11. Nice.

"Most"?

Fine let's play this game again.

Russia, Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa.

Non causa pro causa. You're acting as if the lack of security was due to reasons other than, respectively:

Russia having essentially become a third-world country;

Mexico and Jamaica BEING third-world countries;

South Africa ditto.

The fact remains that both the UK and the US ARE first-world countries and violence is way less serious in the UK. The same goes to Japan.

No, instead they were driven away for several reasons up to and including war weariness and lack of equipment and the fundies there used those guns to stage a coup, made the place into a dystopia and ended up causing 9-11. Nice.

War weariness after ten years of fighting a populace primarily armed w/ small arms.

Nice way to throw the red herrings into the mix BTW.

War weariness after ten years of fighting a populace primarily armed w/ small arms.

Nice way to throw the red herrings into the mix BTW.

And you're pretty sure the fact the Soviet equipments were vastly outdated and that the US supported many insurgencies had NOTHING to do with that?

Non causa pro causa. You're acting as if the lack of security was due to reasons other than, respectively:

Russia having essentially become a third-world country;

Mexico and Jamaica BEING third-world countries;

South Africa ditto.

The fact remains that both the UK and the US ARE first-world countries and violence is way less serious in the UK. The same goes to Japan.

Fine, move the goalposts around. We could also add in Switzerland and Finland w/ levels of crime similar to the rest of the "first world". We could also show how Australia's crime levels were not effected by more restrictions. You could also try and be a little honest and show that the UK had lower levels of crime even before the heavy restrictions (along w/ most of Western Europe) and that criminals in Japan turn themselves in.

Since you want to bring economic factors into it, surprising since it's not blaming firearm ownership, why don't you look at the economic conditions of where the majority of crime takes place in the US?

Like I said. We can play this game all day.

And you're pretty sure the fact the Soviet equipments were vastly outdated and that the US supported many insurgencies had NOTHING to do with that?


They were "outdated"? Really? Care to prove that?

Want to show what kind of equipment the Afgani insurgents primarily used?

criminals in Japan turn themselves in.

Sou desu ka?

Sou desu ka?

Nice way to respond to the rest of the post.

They were "outdated"? Really? Care to prove that?

Want to show what kind of equipment the Afgani insurgents primarily used?

Most, if not all, South American countries allowed guns when they became dictatorships. Do you know how the dictatorships ended? Political means.

And I'm somewhat amused at the fact that you use Afghanistan, of all countries, as a success history when it comes to gun ownership.

Fine, move the goalposts around. We could also add in Switzerland and Finland w/ levels of crime similar to the rest of the "first world". We could also show how Australia's crime levels were not effected by more restrictions. You could also try and be a little honest and show that the UK had lower levels of crime even before the heavy restrictions (along w/ most of Western Europe) and that criminals in Japan turn themselves in.

Since you want to bring economic factors into it, surprising since it's not blaming firearm ownership, why don't you look at the economic conditions of where the majority of crime takes place in the US?

Like I said. We can play this game all day.

1- And yet crime got even LOWER in the UK.

2- Since when do criminals in Japan turn themselves in with any more frequency than they do in other countries?

Most, if not all, South American countries allowed guns when they became dictatorships. Do you know how the dictatorships ended? Political means.

Show your evidence.

And I'm somewhat amused at the fact that you use Afghanistan, of all countries, as a success history when it comes to gun ownership.

Nice way to change the topic. I used it as a success story of a populace succesfully defending against a technologically superior military force. Since you've can't show otherwise, you're dodging around.

1- And yet crime got even LOWER in the UK.

It did? As a direct result of firearm bans? Prove that one.

2- Since when do criminals in Japan turn themselves in with any more frequency than they do in other countries?

So you're saying that the Japanese criminal is the same as in other places?

Why won't you answer my statements on the other WE countries w/ high ownership levels and low crime as well as the economic factors you wanted to discuss?

Show your evidence.



Nice way to change the topic. I used it as a success story of a populace succesfully defending against a technologically superior military force. Since you've can't show otherwise, you're dodging around.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Brazil#Seventh_.281988_-_Present.29

2 - Do you really think a 38 will do any damage to a tank? We aren't talking technologically superior here, we're talking MUCH more than that. Also, do you know how the insurgency in Iraq works? IED. Explosives. Not guns. It stands to reason that the same methods were used against the Russian army.

If you don't mind, please provide a source for this. I would find one myself, but I have a massive headache... Thanks

EDIT; In fact, you know what - I call Bullshit straight away. A person under 18 can't buy a (reaL) gun here as it is, so...

My source was the 10:00 news. Once you figure out how to link to something I heard on TV, I'll gladly do that. In the meantime, Bunnyducks needs to visit these news stories:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/11/10/finland_to_toughen_gun_policies_after_fatal_shooting_at_school/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/09/school.shooting.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/11/11/worldupdates/2007-11-10T005002Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-304248-1&sec=Worldupdates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7087494.stm

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Brazil#Seventh_.281988_-_Present.29


So one example = "most if not all" now? Try again.


[QUOTE=Heikoku;13205067]2 - Do you really think a 38 will do any damage to a tank? We aren't talking technologically superior here, we're talking MUCH more than that. Also, do you know how the insurgency in Iraq works? IED. Explosives. Not guns. It stands to reason that the same methods were used against the Russian army.

Hop around little bunny. You just said the Russian Military was outdated. Make up your mind.

Homemade explosives. Understand?

Why don't you show "the same methods were used" against the Russians?

It did? As a direct result of firearm bans? Prove that one.



So you're saying that the Japanese criminal is the same as in other places?

Why won't you answer my statements on the other WE countries w/ high ownership levels and low crime as well as the economic factors you wanted to discuss?

1- I will when you prove me that gun ownership deters crime in any way, shape or form.

2- No, I'm saying that your assertion that most, or even many, Japanese criminals "turn themselves in" is bullshit.

3- What is there to discuss? That those developed countries also have less crime? Isn't that also because, unlike the UK, they have a more extensive welfare program?

1- I will when you prove me that gun ownership deters crime in any way, shape or form.

I wasn't making that claim. You were making the reverse causality and now you know you can't prove it.

2- No, I'm saying that your assertion that most, or even many, Japanese criminals "turn themselves in" is bullshit.

Even though Japan has enormous amounts of peer-pressure? Sure.

3- What is there to discuss? That those developed countries also have less crime? Isn't that also because, unlike the UK, they have a more extensive welfare program?

So now you're claiming that firearm restrictions are not the causality of low crime levels? That it has more to do w/ economic reasons?

So one example = "most" now? Try again.




Hop around little bunny. You just said the Russian Military was outdated. Make up your mind.

Homemade explosives. Understand?

Why don't you show "the same methods were used" against the Russians?

1- Chile didn't purge its military dictatorship with people's guns. Neither did Argentina. Bolivia's was a MILITARY rebellion. And on it goes.

2- Homemade explosives can be manufactured with a bottle, cloth, and gasoline. I understand perfectly, you don't seem to.

3- It was. The point is that, no, the Afghan people did NOT take on the Russian army and win through pointing their 38s at the Russian tanks.

4- "Little bunny" is a name you can give either to a woman that somehow finds herself out of a drunken stupor in bed with you, or to whatever woman you somehow managed to convince you're not a dick. Not to me.

I wasn't making that claim. You were making the reverse causality and now you know you can't prove it.



Even though Japan has enormous amounts of peer-pressure? Sure.



So now you're claiming that firearm restrictions are not the causality of low crime levels? That it has more to do w/ economic reasons?

1- Then what the hell is your point? That we're somehow better off with guns even though they do nothing but cheapen human life?

2- Peer pressure isn't enough to make people turn themselves in. You made a broad claim that criminals in Japan turn themselves in. If that were true, there'd be no CSI's in Tokyo.

3- Firearm restrictions are ONE of the causes.

1- Chile didn't purge its military dictatorship with people's guns. Neither did Argentina. Bolivia's was a MILITARY rebellion. And on it goes.

And their levels of firearm ownership and restrictions?

2- Homemade explosives can be manufactured with a bottle, cloth, and gasoline. I understand perfectly, you don't seem to.

Sure I do. Now you're saying a local, underarmed insurgency can defeat a technologically superior force. Completely opposite of what you said earlier

3- It was. The point is that, no, the Afghan people did NOT take on the Russian army and win through pointing their 38s at the Russian tanks.

Nope, they started w/ hunting rifles, mostly old Enfields, and then got more advanced as they defeated Russian units.

Try again.

4- "Little bunny" is a name you can give either to a woman that somehow finds herself out of a drunken stupor in bed with you, or to whatever woman you somehow managed to convince you're not a dick.

Or it can be used as a name for a poster that's hopping around left and right and crapping out fallacies like pellets.

Too cute that you have to now try and play the sexism card.

1- Then what the hell is your point? That we're somehow better off with guns even though they do nothing but cheapen human life?

My point is that you have made claims that "less guns=less crime" and I'm calling on you to prove it. Of course you can't so you have to go to the ad hominems and insults.

2- Peer pressure isn't enough to make people turn themselves in. You made a broad claim that criminals in Japan turn themselves in. If that were true, there'd be no CSI's in Tokyo.

I didn't claim all, that's your strawman.

3- Firearm restrictions are ONE of the causes.

And I'm asking for the proof. You made the claim that it was due to tight restrictions that resulted in low crime. Then you moved the goalposts adding in economics and social programs after I showed that was not true.

I can provide an anecdote against that as well. In Illinois, if you take out Chicago, w/ its effective ban on guns, the crime rate of the rest of the state (with high levels of ownership) drops down to levels similar to Europe. The same can be said for most states w/ a crime ridden urban area.

And their levels of firearm ownership and restrictions?



Sure I do. Now you're saying a local, underarmed insurgency can defeat a technologically superior force. Completely opposite of what you said earlier



Nope, they started w/ hunting rifles, mostly old Enfields, and then got more advanced as they defeated Russian units.

Try again.



Or it can be used as a name for a poster that's hopping around left and right and crapping out fallacies like pellets.

Too cute that you have to now try and play the sexism card.

1- There aren't many restrictions to guns besides a license in South America.

2- Not with guns.

3- I'm male.

1- There aren't many restrictions to guns besides a license in South America.

Proof? Can you get those licenses easily?

2- Not with guns.

"Not with guns" what? They didn't start out w/ bolt action and single-shot rifles? They weren't primarily armed at the end w/ AK's and other weapons taken from the Russians?

Show your evidence to your claims.

3- I'm male.

And you're still making claims that I'm being sexist.

My point is that you have made claims that "less guns=less crime" and I'm calling on you to prove it. Of course you can't so you have to go to the ad hominems and insults.



I didn't claim all, that's your strawman.



And I'm asking for the proof. You made the claim that it was due to tight restrictions that resulted in low crime. Then you moved the goalposts adding in economics and social programs after I showed that was not true.

I can provide an anecdote against that as well. In Illinois, if you take out Chicago, w/ its effective ban on guns, the crime rate of the rest of the state (with high levels of ownership) drops down to levels similar to Europe. The same can be said for most states w/ a crime ridden urban area.

1- Who the fuck called me "little bunny" here?

2- You said "criminals in Japan turn themselves in". That's a pretty broad statement.

3- And I'm asking for proof that guns have any benefit whatsoever.

1- Who the fuck called me "little bunny" here?

I did because you're hopping around all over the place.

2- You said "criminals in Japan turn themselves in". That's a pretty broad statement.

I said "many" and that's based off of societal peer-pressure, you know, the same reason Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Go ahead and deny that one.

3- And I'm asking for proof that guns have any benefit whatsoever.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they have "no benefit". I find target shooting very relaxing. Otherwise there's hunting, self-defense, collecting, sporting, etc.

Now comes the claim that no one "needs" a gun for those things or some other claim about "real men"

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Proof? Can you get those licenses easily?



"Not with guns" what? They didn't start out w/ bolt action and single-shot rifles? They weren't primarily armed at the end w/ AK's and other weapons taken from the Russians?

Show your evidence to your claims.



And you're still making claims that I'm being sexist.

1- I don't know, could they get licenses in Afghanistan easily? What the heck is your point? People were allowed to carry guns.

2- Ah, TAKEN FROM THE RUSSIANS. Not with 38s the average Joe can buy in the mall.

3- No, I'm not. I'm just telling you who you should call bunny in a nicer way than saying "call your mother bunny, not me".

1- I don't know, could they get licenses in Afghanistan easily? What the heck is your point? People were allowed to carry guns.

You don't know but you're making claims anyway. Gotcha.

2- Ah, TAKEN FROM THE RUSSIANS. Not with 38s the average Joe can buy in the mall.

Some selective reading there. How did they take them? Oh, right. After being beaten w/ personally owned small arms. You claimed it was by IED's and the Russians were "outdated".

3- No, I'm not. I'm just telling you who you should call bunny in a nicer way than saying "call your mother bunny, not me".

Sure. Then stop hopping around.

I did because you're hopping around all over the place.



I said "many" and that's based off of societal peer-pressure, you know, the same reason Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Go ahead and deny that one.



Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they have "no benefit". I find target shooting very relaxing. Otherwise there's hunting, self-defense, collecting, sporting, etc.

Now comes the claim that no one "needs" a gun for those things or some other claim about "real men"

Go ahead, I'll wait.

1- So, you attempt to justify your own insult while accusing me of insulting you with no evidence.

2- How many? And by definition criminals aren't the kind to mind the laws, which are, effectively, peer pressure with teeth. As for suicide rate, there's also a big one in Sweden, but that's beyond the point.

3- These things, including the self-defense thing you claim works (but usually leaves you dead and the criminal one gun richer) are heavily offset by the harm they do.

1- So, you attempt to justify your own insult while accusing me of insulting you with no evidence.

Hop, hop, hop

2- How many? And by definition criminals aren't the kind to mind the laws, which are, effectively, peer pressure with teeth. As for suicide rate, there's also a big one in Sweden, but that's beyond the point.

I didn't offer numbers. You claimed the low crime rate in Japan and the UK were due to restrictive firearm laws. Then you started hopping around to economics and then saying the UK had less social welfare but crime allegedly dropped due to the more restrictions.

3- These things, including the self-defense thing you claim works (but usually leaves you dead and the criminal one gun richer) are heavily offset by the harm they do.

"Usually" now? Are you going to provide evidence for that either or is it another claim? The rest is just your personal opinion.

You don't know but you're making claims anyway. Gotcha.



Some selective reading there. How did they take them? Oh, right. After being beaten w/ personally owned small arms. You claimed it was by IED's and the Russians were "outdated".



Sure. Then stop hopping around.

1- No, I'm pointing out that, yes, it is legal to pack heat in those countries. You're asking me things that are essentially trivia in order to claim I don't "know" what I'm talking about.

2- Let's assume you have a point with Afghanistan; You named ONE country, I named SEVERAL. Isn't it quite possible that Afghanistan is the exception, not the rule?

3- This claim that I'm "hopping around" is not only a lie, it's also a poor excuse to go ad hominem on me.

1- No, I'm pointing out that, yes, it is legal to pack heat in those countries. You're asking me things that are essentially trivia in order to claim I don't "know" what I'm talking about.

And I asked you for proof of which you claimed you "don't know" yet still are making claims based on it.

2- Let's assume you have a point with Afghanistan; You named ONE country, I named SEVERAL. Isn't it quite possible that Afghanistan is the exception, not the rule?

Of which you didn't provide evidence of ownership levels for. You claimed that a populace couldn't defeat a military and then made crap up. I showed you you were wrong. The countries you named did not have popular uprisings against their Junta's.

3- This claim that I'm "hopping around" is not only a lie, it's also a poor excuse to go ad hominem on me.

To bad you're still doing it.

Hop, hop, hop



I didn't offer numbers. You claimed the low crime rate in Japan and the UK were due to restrictive firearm laws. Then you started hopping around to economics and then saying the UK had less social welfare but crime allegedly dropped due to the more restrictions.



"Usually" now? Are you going to provide evidence for that either or is it another claim? The rest is just your personal opinion.

1- Gee, is mockery all that you can resort to in an argument? No wonder you're making such a fool of yourself.

2- If you didn't offer numbers, why do you demand them of me?

3- Most guns in the market had a licensed owner at one point. The gun was either stolen or outright robbed.

hehehhe this is getting so pathetic its funny!

Kecibukia = totally pwned :p

:D

The countries you named did not have popular uprisings against their Junta's.

Exactly. Because most people know that attacking an army with normal guns is idiotic. The guerilla movements within the South American countries were the exception, not the rule. And they worked by taking hostages, mostly.

My source was the 10:00 news. Once you figure out how to link to something I heard on TV, I'll gladly do that. In the meantime, Bunnyducks needs to visit these news stories:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/11/10/finland_to_toughen_gun_policies_after_fatal_shooting_at_school/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/09/school.shooting.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/11/11/worldupdates/2007-11-10T005002Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-304248-1&sec=Worldupdates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7087494.stm
Yes, and South Lorenya needs to learn the distinction between buying and owning/using. You talked about people under 18 buing a gun in your OP - something that isn't exactly possible here. Most of the links you provided seem to be able to make that distinction.

Be it as it may, as a gun owner myself, I welcome the stricter law. In fact, I wouldn't mind even stricter limitations.

1- Gee, is mockery all that you can resort to in an argument? No wonder you're making such a fool of yourself.

How cute. You still can't defend your claims.

2- If you didn't offer numbers, why do you demand them of me?

You made the initial claims. I'm asking you to back them up w/ some sort of evidence. All you have against me is one side track that you haven't been able to dispute.

3- Most guns in the market had a licensed owner at one point. The gun was either stolen or outright robbed.

And that has what to do w/ your false claim? You claimed most cases of self-defense w/ a firearm end up w/ the victim ending up losing.

Exactly. Because most people know that attacking an army with normal guns is idiotic. The guerilla movements within the South American countries were the exception, not the rule. And they worked by taking hostages, mostly.

Seems most movements don't agree w/ you. How did they take and keep hostages? W/ firearms.

hehehhe this is getting so pathetic its funny!

Kecibukia = totally pwned :p

:D

"totally pwned" in your world is destroying the claims of the other person? You are Looney Tunes.

No, I'm not a slave and I'm certainly not a child. Why you assume either remains a mystery.I did not assume, I asked. My reason for asking will hopefully become obvious to you at some point.

People over 18 don't get guns neither in the UK nor in Japan; are those people slaves? Are their lawmakers children? False dilemma. You asked if people above 18 should be allowed to own guns, now whether they should be supplied with guns. I answered that generally, they should.
As to whether the people of the UK and Japan are slaves and their lawmakers children, I'm not sure there's a definite answer to that. The peoples of those two countries are certainly not free. And while their lawmakers might be adults in the eyes of the law, they certainly act like children.

You work under the assumption that a populace with rifles could do anything against an army with tanks should your government ever become tyrannic. Not to mention the assumption that the tyranny won't be SUPPORTED by many or even most people with guns.I'd be a fool to assume either. One look at a 3rd world country, or a semi-1st world country like the US, falsifies such assumptions. One might add one'd be a fool to assume one's psychic powers were reliable, no?

Free people aren't denied the right to choose whether or not to own firearms. They may lack the means to obtain them. They may voluntarily agree to limit the use of them. But they may not be denied the right to own such things. Otherwise they are not free.

I'm not American. I've never even visited the N. American continent. I don't own a gun, nor will I ever, unless I get caught up in a civil war. Not because I can't, but because I don't want to. As a semi-free adult, it is up to me to decide whether or not I desire to own a gun, and whether or not me owning a gun would be responsible behaviour. In my case, it wouldn't be. Thus I don't.

Until I prove myself incapable of acting responsibly and in my own interest, I'm assumed to be capable of doing so, and mostly allowed to. Unfortunately a combination of well meaning idiots and baby-hitlers around the world, have managed to deny me a fair portion of my autonomy. I don't fully own myself. I'm not free.
This vile usurpation of my freedom has mostly been managed through manipulation of the fears of the public, often by people who'd claim things like "nobody should be allowed to leave this society, for the common good" or "nobody should be allowed to carry knives more than 5 inches in length, for the common good" or "Turks shouldn't be allowed into this society, for the common good" and a depressingly long list of other profound stupidities.

I'm not against gun control, in theory. Some types of individual behaviour can, under the wrong circumstances pose a significant threat to the wellbeing and/or autonomy of others, and sometimes this risk won't be immediately obvious to an individual.

But to deny people their autonomy simply because a few of them may conceivably make a poor decision, is fucking monstrous. I might be able to understand why someone who has never known any degree of autonomy would ask, but coming from anyone else, it strikes me as the suggestion of a dangerous lunatic.

(1) If you buy something, you own it.
(2) Some people -- such as the finnish shooter -- plan to use a gun almost as soon as they own it.
(3) Picking out typos? I'm sure that REALLY improves your argument.

I say, lets pick an age. It needs to be the same age that shall be legally defined as "adulthood". Once an "adult", ytou can do all the lovely things children cant. Drink, smoke, screw, shoot, and vote!

Whooohooo!

Better yet, move to America where we can do all of it at once! In my state we call it "Deer Season!"

Woooo for drunken hunting!!!!

No offence, but a drunk person with a gun stalking the woods in hopes of screwing something is not someone I'd like to spend time with.

(1) If you buy something, you own it.
(2) Some people -- such as the finnish shooter -- plan to use a gun almost as soon as they own it.
(3) Picking out typos? I'm sure that REALLY improves your argument.

1) There's a huge difference. You made it sound like a 15 year olds can go and buy a gun here at a whim. They can't. Their parents have to essentially buy it in their name.
2) I wouldn't know. Quite possibly so. Why buy a gun and not use it..?`I mean, most of us don't use it to commit a massacre.
3) I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. Do you mean me italicizing 'buing'? So sorry for the typo, I'm sure you understood what I meant.

Your arguement that revolutions in gun owning countries fail because normal weapons can't beat the millitary is because most revolutions don't have popular public suport. Look at the eastern block nations, they were able to break free of the soviet union and they used normal weapon and won because they had popular support.

Your arguement that revolutions in gun owning countries fail because normal weapons can't beat the millitary is because most revolutions don't have popular public suport. Look at the eastern block nations, they were able to break free of the soviet union and they used normal weapon and won because they had popular support.Did guns play a key role in Eastern Block revolutions? You have to help me here.

Did guns play a key role in Eastern Block revolutions? You have to help me here.

nope. they kicked the ruskies out after a giant pillow fight.:rolleyes:

(3) Picking out typos? I'm sure that REALLY improves your argument.

You picked up the typo he made, as you didn't make the typo in the original post. That really improves your argument!

As for the story itself, it's just sensationalism without any real point behind it. Finland would have to follow the EU directive anyway (you know, the one where EVERY country in the European Union will have the same limit of only 18 year olds and beyond being able to acquire weapons, with or without parental consent) since it's going to go through no matter what Finland does - the majority of the EU nations are backing it up. Finland "resisting" it before meant nothing due to the majority backing of it, and it would have to be implemented in the country just as much as everywhere else in the EU.

Good job not reading beyond the topics of the news stories?

nope. they kicked the ruskies out after a giant pillow fight.:rolleyes:They did neither. Your example does not support your claim.

In the post WWI era, I can't think of a single example that would support your claim. I can think of plenty of the opposite, however. Indeed the primary function of most of Earth's militaries, is to protect their financiers from their populations. The militaries of the 1st world countries are almost the only exceptions, and even then, their primary functions are only very slightly different; to protect investments from foreign populations.