Time Immortal

George Jonas muses on this subject in light of the recent fatal shootings which took place in Finland. I saw the newsbit about the shootings back when they happened, but didn’t really follow the story. Mr. Jonas, however, has taken his analysis in the same direction that my own thoughts went, at least initially. Whatever might have prevented the massacre at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality, Gun control was not it: the Finns already have comprehensive gun control.

And in this particular case especially, it was the gun control apparatus of the Finnish state that contributed to the problem.

Note: per site policy and the excellent suggestion of Mark Shea from way back when, the name of the shooter has been removed from the excerpt below. May his name be blotted out!

One of [the shooter]’s two faces conveyed enough reassurance to make him the legal owner of a Walther .22 pistol, even after he featured himself on a Web site discharging his weapon in the direction of whoever was filming him, snarling at the camera in near-flawless English: “You will die next.” The video appeared on a local social networking site, causing the police to request an interview with him, but not to withdraw his permit. As police spokesman Mintala Urpo put it: “The officer made his decision — he thought there was no reason to take the gun off him.”

The officer probably let other people keep their guns that day who subsequently did nothing. [The shooter] did, though. The next day at around 11 a.m., he entered a classroom at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality. He carried some Molotov-cocktails — initial British press reports described them as “petrol-bombs” — along with his Walther .22. The pistol probably had a five-inch barrel as the original 3.4-inch barrel made the model a concealable weapon, unavailable for recreational use in Finland. This wise regulation didn’t prevent [the shooter] from reaching the classroom with his gun concealed — until he put it to what he may have regarded as recreational use.

Having shot seven women and two men in the classroom, the apprentice chef set off his gasoline-filled bottles, broiling his nine victims beyond recognition. Another young woman was shot in the hallway, and died later in the same hospital to which [the shooter] himself was taken after shooting himself in the head. By around 12:30 p.m., it was all over.

What could have prevented the tragedy? Gun control? Finland has gun control. [An e]ighteen-year-old…who last year killed six fellow students, a headmistress and a school nurse in the Finnish town of Jokela before turning the gun on himself, had to do it with a wimpy .22, a SIG Mosquito, as police wouldn’t let him buy a 9 mm Beretta. They thought [the shooter] wasn’t experienced enough. Presumably, after his shooting spree, he would have been.

Of course, in the wake of such tragedies as this, people look for something to blame. Some call for a ban on handguns, as though this would have a deterrent effect on would-be mass-murderers. The kid also had Molotov cocktails — shall we ban petrol and glass bottles along with handguns? Could not the shooter have obtained a handgun illegally, or simply gone about the task of murder using a rifle instead? George Jonas glibly suggests that the Finns should blame America (he is obviously joking, but his point is not one of humour).

Nobody would ever think to blame gun control or the chances in social attitude toward personal protection and firearms that has taken place in recent decades, would they?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!