YLE, 21 June 2010 : "Anne Holmlund (cons), minister of the interior, told in an interview with the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE), that she would not push forwards to implement a total ban on semiautomatic firearms in Finland."
STT, 06 July 2010 : "Two people died and a third was seriously wounded in a shooting in a McDonald's restaurant carpark in Porvoo in southern Finland early on Tuesday."
11 comments:
Perhaps to show the power that a business sector and a Hick Lobby have over political logic even on one of the simpliest questions a socity can faces. Such as "Why would/do people require semi-automatic hand guns?"
They don't! A bolt action 306 rifle and 9mm GLOCK are two rather different things.
If interest groups can befudle such simple question just think about the impact such groups have on the realestate market.
So, did I manage to link the two? It was fun trying...
P.S. the latter Eric is another person, not a second personality ;-)
@Eric,
I thought so - I had not so long time, one spaming the blog by non constructive, rather aggressive comments. Might be the same. Anyway I will do the cleaning when needed, and since i'm currently on Holiday, I hope I won't have to put the blog in full moderation.
Eric, you got the point. I wanted to show that the parliament and the ministers does not necessarily represent the population as some law and action are driven by policies that fit other agenda - either driven by powerful groups (industrial etc..) or coordinated among states to fulfill "greater" aims (e.g. in the medium range, the loan to Greece).
Icelands Katla is getting closer to going bang so you guys might get your economic catastrophe soon.
And anybody had problems with Visa Electron today? Might have to stock on cash again.
Interest rates still creeping up day by day every day.
I may be in the minority on this but I firmly believe the more weapons in the hands of citizens the better. Of course there is the typical argument: self defense. But I would argue that the right to defend yourself is only the first part of a larger argument: the overthrow of a tyrannical State.
I don't know how many (if any) Americans are on here but that is something that needs to be in every Constitution. In fact it is the only duty listed in the Declaration of Independence for all Americans to uphold.
Certainly Finland is not America, but I firmly believe republic democracies only last as long as the government fears its citizens and knows that they answer to them.
So why do people need semi-automatic weapons (or even automatic weapons)? To deal with a government that oversteps its boundaries.
There's an old adage where I come from: It may be fine for the police to save you from a criminal, but who will save you from the police?
On a moral ground I also firmly believe there are more good people in Finland/USA than those who are 'evil doers'/criminals thus the more guns in the hands of all citizens the less crime there is, as saying "I have a gun" typically stops a criminal in their tracks - and if they persist a bullet will most certainly end their threats to your life, liberty, and property.
@ Billpete002
I have to agree with you and don't see any problem with people owning guns, but think that full automatic rifles and handguns should be banned. I just don't see the point in anyone having them, outside of police (handguns) and military (full-auto weapons). Where do we draw the line? Certainly, no one would mess with me if I had low yield nuclear weapon in the trunk of my car and I might even be able to sway some opinions.
But on your argument of defending a nation against a Tyrannical Government (always defined by ONES own perception), I see many flaws with using this an excuse to own firearms as some people (likely a on the fringe) may perceives a certain political entity (person or group) as a tyrannical threat to their current or future welfare and be willing to take unlawful violent action against them. Even today pundits on FOX News hark back to the US constitution when they call Obama an Evil Tyrant in their attempt to ramp-up fear and hate in their Tea Party Members. Not sure if you've seen any interviews of those folks, but I'd feel a lot safer knowing that a few of them had no access to fully automatic weapons. A Cocktail of deep seeded hatred and, how should put this, clearly left-tails on the IQ distribution, is an scary mixture when you stir it with an M16.
I think a couple better democratic way to dealing with politicians:
1) If you’re not happy with incumbents kick them out. Even if their posted narratives match yours closest. Vote for the second best and kick them out, if their performance does not match your expectation. People give too much weight to ideals on not enough to performance.
2) And even better--Run for office yourself.
@ Eric
If the government was indeed tyrannical than no matter how much voting or such would matter would it?
That is when the only recourse (when all peaceable means have been used) via violence should be taken.
Should people have access to nukes? Clearly no. Should they have access to RPG's perhaps not, but I see no reason why my neighbor and myself cannot own a M1A41 or otherwise.
As for the fringe person willing to kill and/or assassinate - those are the risks we would need to take for freedom, true freedom.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
You're seriously quoting Freidman on Freedom? Have read much about him and Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte's US Backed (a foreign power) junta?
“Now that you're done throwing Farmer's Commie Butts out of helicopter, I'm ready to give you some economic advice.” ;-)
I certainly respect M. Freidman's contribution to economic theory, but I'd personally argue that the quote on freedom you've noted had nothing to do with guns but people's right to economic choice. Too bad we can't ask old Miltie.
Got any good Gandhi quotes you can frame as pro M1A41? ;-)
And why not nukes if I could afford one? Tough crap, if my freedom choice might have some negative externalities for someone else, right? When my freedom screws someone else’s life we'll clearly both get higher degrees of freedom and equality, correct?
Seriously though, in the end I respect your right to have a view that differs from mine and have to admit that your stance is not meritless. I just think a mature society should be able to move beyond the means of violence or its implicit threat as a mode towards progress. Perhaps I'm just a treehugger...
Later,
Eric
P.S. I hope my hyperbolic sense of humor is not bugging you too much!
On the topic of the Junta -
He helped balance Chile's economy and went - to the best of my knowledge - without U.S. backing. Also, because a leader has committed crimes doesn't mean those who went to aid are at fault.
He was also outspoken in his later book stating that the Chileans should have deposed the Junta and established Democracy.
However this is all quite off topic to the original discussion...
------
On the topic of a possible misquote -
Free economies require maximum liberties of the populous. The only ways to secure a population against tyranny is A) public discourse, B) election, C) nullification, D) if all else fails revolution.
-----------
On the topic of nukes and freedom
A nuclear weapon doesn't depose a leader of self defense - its intention is mass annihilation. Which is why there is a gray area for conventional explosives (in my mind). As for people living peacefully with fully automatic weapons? Look at Switzerland - every male has an automatic weapon in his house on the account they all serve in mandatory army service (which in my mind is wrong morally, but that is besides the point) there are very few crimes in Switzerland - and even fewer with males using their automatic weapons upon another human.
---------
As far as witty banter is concerned it is welcome - since economics, especially in today's world, needs any amount of cheer to brighten it. ;)
A speeding drunk drives through red light and hits a child. What does authority do? Lowers the speed limit of course. The road is safe again.
Is there any analogy?
The authorities arrest and imprison the man who hit the child - why should it be the fault of everyone for one person's stupidity or mishap?
The same for gun violence. The idiot wielding the gun should be detained (and in my opinion) executed. The person clearly did not value other people's lives nor their property and thus society should not value his/her's - this is of course in the case of cold blooded murder and not an accident.
Post a Comment