I'll bet they were glad to have a firearm at home to defend themselves

[AtW]

No - the handgun ban was supposed to stop another nutter running amok and killing numerous schoolkids and so far, it has.

How often such gun nutters did it before? Like once in this country? The ban did not prevent it IMHO, because any such nutter can still buy illegal guns and do the same thing - like he would give a tulip about 5 years in prison for illegal firearm when he intends to kill children! The plus bonus for that nutter now is that he will be guaranteed to have no resistance.

[AtW]

it is impossible to know if that would have happened anyway.

Doubling gun crime statistic over whole country over long period of time is a big change that isn't statistical error or anything, it's pretty big trend.

Those who want to argue that with legal handguns gun crime would be even higher should look at gun crime that was committed with legal handguns before the ban - I believe this number was very very small and the whole change in laws was typical politicians overreaction to get votes.

[gingerjedi]

Finland shootings leave six dead

"Finnish police have confirmed they have found the body of a gunman responsible for killing five people in a shooting rampage in the southern city of Espoo."

"The incident is Finland's third major shooting in the past two years."

"But two deadly shootings in recent years focused attention on gun laws in a country where young people were permitted to own and use a firearm at 15 years of age if they had parental consent."

Carry on AtW.

[Board Game Geek]

Finland shootings leave six dead
Carry on AtW.

Ban the gun, and he'd use a knife.

Ban the knife, and he'd use a club.

Ban the club, and he'd use his hands.

Ban the hands, and he'd use his feet.

Ban the feet, and he'd lie on the ground and use his teeth.

Ban his teeth, and he'd gum them to death.

Banning seems a bit pointless doesn't it ?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

There are different levels of how firearms can be handled - in some countries it is legal to have them in your house (France), that's bare minimum in my view - bearing arms for self defence should require higher standard of training, insurance, checks etc. Maybe this country isn't ready for it - however having handguns at home was legal (as far as I am aware) very recently.

Having a gun at home for self defence has been steadily eliminated as a reason for having one, since just after WWII, until by the 1960s it was not supposed ever to be a justification. This was done by government instructions to police forces on how they should interpret the rules for allowing gun licences. Not only was this never debated in Parliament or put to the vote, it was actually classified as Secret.

But the original removal of people's freedom to carry a gun was done just after WWI, in the great period of government clampdown on liberty, the period that introduced everything from formal passport controls to pub closing hours. After WWI loads of the lower classes still had guns and the training to use them, and the government feared that what happened to the Tsar might happen to them.

Gun law isn't to protect us, it's to protect our rulers from us.

[gingerjedi]

Ban the gun, and he'd use a knife.

Ban the knife, and he'd use a club.

Ban the club, and he'd use his hands.

Ban the hands, and he'd use his feet.

Ban the feet, and he'd lie on the ground and use his teeth.

Ban his teeth, and he'd gum them to death.

Banning seems a bit pointless doesn't it ?

No he wouldn't, one guy killed 5 people because its all too easy to point and shoot with a firearm thats readily available.

Most massacres wouldn't happen without guns, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

[BrilloPad]

Carry on AtW.

Does he have to? Its bad enough being at clientco until 9pm without putting up with total drivel.

[AtW]

Finland shootings leave six dead

Carry on AtW.

They have lax laws in Finland - I do not advocate 15 year olds having handguns, minimum age should be much higher - 21, maybe 25.

[AtW]

Most massacres wouldn't happen without guns, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

And you think guy who would want to kill 5-10 people can't get illegal firearm? In anything in this case they could go for automatics.

[AtW]

Having a gun at home for self defence has been steadily eliminated as a reason for having one, since just after WWII, until by the 1960s it was not supposed ever to be a justification. This was done by government instructions to police forces on how they should interpret the rules for allowing gun licences. Not only was this never debated in Parliament or put to the vote, it was actually classified as Secret.

But the original removal of people's freedom to carry a gun was done just after WWI, in the great period of government clampdown on liberty, the period that introduced everything from formal passport controls to pub closing hours. After WWI loads of the lower classes still had guns and the training to use them, and the government feared that what happened to the Tsar might happen to them.

Gun law isn't to protect us, it's to protect our rulers from us.

Indeed - guns are not just there to self defence from burglars, ultimately if population is well armed (like in USA) the Govt won't be able to easily opress said population.

It's not a coincidence that in all totalitarian states ownership of guns is reserved for the Govt entities only.