Clearing the snowjob on Finland

I currently have a troll in my comments section who seems to believe that Finland's recent school shooting tragedy happened because of that country's "lax" gun laws.

I am happy to concede that Finland has the 3rd highest rate of gun ownership in the world (I like this country already!), which is right behind the United States (We're #1!) and Yemen (Huh?). The biggest reason for such a high level of gun ownership in an otherwise gun-phobic continent is Finland's deep tradition of hunting. This is where we get to the part about Finland's so-called "lax" gun laws.

Here is an excerpt from an Associated Press article about the school shooting where we get an idea about Finland's "lax" gun laws, and all emphasis is mine:

Auvinen, who had no previous criminal record and belonged to a shooting club in central Helsinki, shot the victims with a .22-caliber pistol that he bought from a local gun store days before the attack.

Police revealed Friday that Auvinen had settled for the pistol after being denied a license for a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun.

"The application was rejected because a 9 mm gun is considered too powerful ... for target practice shooting," Detective Superintendent Tero Haapala told The Associated Press. "He was recommended to get a .22-caliber gun."

After Wednesday's shooting drew international attention to Finland's gun culture, the Interior Ministry issued a statement saying firearm sales were "strictly controlled."

Before granting a weapons permit, police "assess the applicant's suitability to posses a firearm, his or her way of life, behavior and possible mental health problems," the statement said. Applicants must prove also they have a legitimate need for a gun, such as hunting or target practice. Self-defense is not a valid reason.

Wow! I can just tell that country wants its citizens to strap one to their hips and walk in shootin'.

Meanwhile, here is my idea of lax gun laws, and notice the absence of air quotes around the word lax. The state of Vermont has a homicide rate of 1.3 per 100,000 people. Here are the gun requirements in Vermont. Check out the items I bolded:

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns

* Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.

* Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.


Handguns

* Permit to purchase handgun? No.

* Registration of handguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of handguns? No.

* Permit to carry handguns? No.


Other Requirements

* Is there a State waiting period? No.

* Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? No. State system.

* Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? No.

* Record of sale: Yes.

Meanwhile, The District of Columbia, which has a population roughly the size of Vermont, and has what have to be the toughest gun laws in the nation, has a per-100,000 murder rate of - remember, Vermont is 1.3 - D.C.'s is 35.4! In the District of Columbia, you can't even own a handgun in your own home, yet in Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon! Where would you want to live?

Yes, I know the argument will be that Vermont and the District of Columbia are states (well, Vermont is anyway), while Finland is a whole country. I'll tell you what, I'm not going to do it right now because it is pushing 2am (can't sleep), but how about someone out there do a little research and find out what happened to the gun crime rate in Great Britain and Australia after they both instituted gun bans in the mid-1990s after similar mass-shootings. I'll give you a hint: the rates didn't go down.

Good Day to You, Sir