Talk:Firearms regulation in Finland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inaccuracies?

This article contains a lot of information that needs to be checked. For example, it is claimed that there are 30 000 fully automatic weapons in private ownership, when it is illegal to own fully automatic weapons. Also, things like 'military style' weapons makes it look like the place has guys driving tanks around and carrying machine guns. Also, I dont see the point of comparing the country to USA. Not to mention that Texas is the only place where private ownership of anti-tank weapons is legal...--HJV 18:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is completely legal to own fullauto weapons in Finland, if you have licence to it:

"Lupa sarjatuliasetta, sinkoa, kranaatinheitintä, takaaladattavaa tykkiä tai rakenteeltaan ja käyttötarkoitukseltaan vastaavaa ampuma-asetta taikka ohjus- tai raketinheitinjärjestelmää taikka näiden aseiden osaa varten voidaan antaa vain, jos hakijan ilmoittama käyttötarkoitus on näytös, kuvaus tai muu vastaava esitys taikka museossa tai kokoelmassa pitäminen. Lupa edellä mainittuja ampuma-aseita tai niiden osia varten voidaan erityisestä syystä antaa myös työhön, jossa ase on välttämätön."

[1]

And if you in USA have class III licence you can own fullauto weapons and "destructive devices" in every state where that is legal, many more states than Texas.

Tentatively, I'm going to remove the NPOV warning. I think the primary points in flagging it were (1) legality of full auto in Finland, (2) why compare to the US. With regards to (1), several of our Finnish visitors have confirmed that automatic weapons can be owned. With regards to (2), Finland makes an interesting counterpoint to the US, if only because people find the Finnish rate of gun ownership surprising.

Errors

This article contains a surprisingly low number of errors. I'll try to sum them up:

- the Finnish firearms legislation has certain exemptions, e.g. it doesn't regulate government-owned firearms at all (when used by goverment employees), foreign security elements may have certain exemptions (during state visits etc.), ...

- any person, not just a family member, can have the "parallel license" to a firearm (e.g. your hunting buddy)

- please move the section "Firearms categories" above the section "Regulation"

- please define terms: use/carry (Finnish: käyttäminen), transport (Finnish: kuljettaminen), storage (Finnish: säilyttäminen)

• "carrying the gun" means using it for the licensed purpose, such as hunting
• you can only carry the gun when you have the opportunity to do so, like when you're in the woods
• "transporting the gun" means moving it from one place to another, like from your home to your hunting grounds
• while transporting, the gun must be unloaded, holstered/bagged and you must have a valid reason (i.e. you cannot continuously transport the gun around and claim you're on your way to a shooting range)
• "storing the gun" means keeping the gun e.g. at your home under the already mentioned terms (stored in a locked place etc.)

- the regulating body on gun collectorship is Ministry of Interior, which also regulates the licensing of select fire weapons etc. (Finnish: erityisen vaaralliset ampuma-aseet) instead of the local police authority

- the membership requirement of any kind of association, including "marksmanship association" (gun club), won't be enforced in Finnish legislation, following from the Finnish constitution

- the main part Finnish firearms legislation (Finnish: Ampuma-aselaki) was last changed October 2005 (Finnish goverment keeps refining all legislation little by little)

- "other type weapon" (Finnish: muu ampuma-ase) may be better described as "special firearm", "exceptional firearm" or some such (in fact, it's a catch-all category, which includes the firearms which don't fall into other, more traditional categories. An example would be a modern sporting rifle of bullpup design which is shorter than a traditional rifle)

- please decide on using the different terms, like weapon/firearm, license/certificate, automatic/select fire

- on the tear gas issue, it is not restricted to security professionals. Some other (possible) user groups include people working in somewhat dangerous conditions, like hospital staff, night shifts in certain areas, people being harrassed (by others having restraining orders in place)

- most of the unlicensed firearms in the worst estimates are not illegal per se; they are just lying around on somebodys attic since grandpa brought them from WW2 and later on passed away -> nobody even knows they exist. So I would prefer the term "unlicensed" to "illegal", as "illegal" implies deliberate crime

That's about all I can come up with... jthyttin

On this last point it should be noted that it is very easy for the inheritor to register these "illegal" guns when the original owner dies. 82.181.150.151 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Politics?

I don't understand the title of this page. Why "politics"? I mean, it's not a discussion about groups with competing interests in gun registration v. no-gun-registration and licensing v. no licensing or just in general ease of gun ownership versus difficult in gun ownership. So ... I don't get where the "politics" comes into it. There's no correlation between changes in the gun laws and discussions of crime statistics in Finland, or even discussions of perceptions of crime in Finland. I have no idea about the validity of laws as presented, or why it would be useful to the gun lobby in the United States (except perhaps on the theory that crime must be lower in Finland). Of course, it also seems to me that the Finnish system clearly, whatever else it entails, entails gun *registration,* an anathema in the United States (for many, at least, and political suicide according to the received wisdom), whatever other liberality in gun ownership it may or may not provide for.Blondlieut 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Subject seems quite absurd, since there aren't really any "gun politics" in Finland. Gunlaws aren't political (there aren't any "gun liberalization front") but juridical/technical issue only, and few Finns pay attention to them at all. I think situatition is quite same in most of the European countries. Article should be moved to "gun laws in Finland" or something, or maybe deleted as irrelevant information about minor subject.--ML 09:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there is the Finnish NRA which will lobby for atleast keeping laws as they are. I'm worried it might become more prominent in politics, I really hope not, since that risks more gun laws being created, we got as much as we need, even a bit too much, all of europe should really take a hint from Switzerland. - 212.213.32.126 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Guest

I think that the page is named this way to be consistent with the other pages on the subject. Of course if a more amenable alternative can be found that would be great. I don't see a problem with having a "Firearms in X" set of articles. - FrancisTyers · 09:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a waiting period?

In Finnish law, is there typically a waiting period between the application for a gun and getting the permit? If so, how long? Any evidence of when Auvinen applied? ZookieByTheSea 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

5,3 Million people ??

Is it not closer to 5,6 Million that lives in Finland? I know for sure its at least 5,5 Millions.

You should'nt be so sure. According to official statistics Finland's population at the end of 2006 was 5 276 955 people and estimation of september 2007 says it is 5 294 384. -- 85.29.96.69 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

5,3 Million people

Is it not therefore proper to say 5,3 million people? Also, it is easy to get a gun licence in Finland, as the recent school shooting showed. I'm neither for or against gun ownership, I shoot an airgun and don't think it's bad, it's when you shoot people that the moral compass should go red. Anyway, laws against owning guns are bad for the people. Though all my family's old guns have been given over. I thought them historical, but they didn't. Those seal-guns were historical, nobody in my family hunts seals anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.239.101 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

SAS Accuracy/Inaccuracy

Can we be sure the Finnish dismissal of the study is not simply a publicity thing? It only came after the shooting, which can point to the Finnish government wanting to uphold a peaceful reputation be saying there aren't so many firearms in the country. I doubt the study would be off by such a margin, and they would have no reason to lie about there findings, while the Finnish government would. Rynky (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not only a publicity thing, although the amount of publicity given to the finding is a media phenomenon. Without the Jokela massacre, the Finnish government would probably not have bothered to denounce the finding. The study itself confirms on p. 56 that Finnish authorities estimate the number of illegal firearms being around 50.000. However, they claim that this number is suspiciously low, and they use a completely different, global statistical method to get their estimate. In 2005, the same group made an estimate of 300.000 illegal firearms, which was updated in 2007 to 1.5 million illegal firearms. (In 2004, the official estimate was 100.000 illegal guns, but since then, about 50.000 illegal guns, mostly war souveniers have been handed in, so the estimate was lowered. The amount of new illegal guns is minor in comparison, in the opinion of the police.) The idea in the SAS is to correlate the existing national data on illegal gun ownership which is considered trustworthy with the existing national data on legal gun ownership. Then they estimate the unexisting national numbers for illegal ownership from the correlations. The Finnish government considers that this method does not have any meaning, because it leaves out all national differences. Personally, I believe that the official estimate is likely to be much more accurate, because it is based on the numbers of illegal weapons confiscated or voluntarily handed in. The Finnish society is rather law-abiding and getting a gun permit is so easy that not many people bother getting an illegal gun. Most illegal weapons are either keepsakes from the WWII or have ended up to heirs who have not obtained the permit. Of course, this is a question of different opinions. --MPorciusCato (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the method they used does seem a little shaky, and the permit is so easy to get not many people would have an illegal gun. But the article sourced denouncing the SAS makes it seem like the police try to keep as many guns as they can out of civilian hands. Perhaps the numbers are right after all, but it looks like this is mostly an attempt to keep gun control groups from forming, and to make Finland look more civilized, not that I disagree with either of those two causes. Rynky (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction needs a major over haul.

Like the Title says; the introduction is just terrible.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gun Nuances?

I believe that while the information is correct as itself, it fails to convey some anti-gun nuances present in Finnish gun legislation. For example, the Finnish text cited above notes that the license for military weapons (fully automatic firearms, antitank weapons, breach loaded cannons, mortars, missile or rocket launcher systems) can be given only for purposes of shows, recordings (i.e. movies) or for museum exhibitions. Also the tear gas and pepper spray guns are, in effect, strictly regulated. No private person can cite "personal protection" to get a license for any kind of gun. "Personal protection" applies only to security guards, who must have extra training to get a right to carry even a pepper spray, let alone a firearm. The other reasons: training and collection apply only to security training companies and registered gun collectors. It is not easy to become a licensed gun collector in Finland. Most of them are either professional soldiers or have a long record of responsible gun ownership.

The purpose of this page is, I think, to provide arguments for the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. The actual content of the page is less important. I'll make a few minor changes to remove the implied bias. --81.197.79.13 13:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Made several changes to correct verb and subject agreement, also removed informal words such as 'ammo' and replaced with more appropriate words eg 'ammunition', 'obtained' rather that 'get'.

Generally it is also worth noting that any use of firearms in law enforcement or personal protection is discouraged and happens rarely - I am not familiar with the legislation but I'm not surprised if just pulling out a gun by a policeman requires a report to be written for justification. Just to give an idea, there are multiple documented cases in which simply holding a gun and threatening for self defence has not only resulted in the person being fined for "illegal threatening", but even having to pay psychological damages to the "victim". Some known examples vary from two drunk men trying to go through the door to a house, and the owner, protecting his small kids, pointed a gun at the men asking them to leave (both the criminals and the man were fined), and a gas station owner who was fined for holding a burglar at gunpoint. How to bring this general anti-gun attitude in legal practice out in the article is another question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.149.110 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed legislation on 2009 and reactions

Taprup and Hauskalainen have made completely conflicting edits on the topic of proposed changes to the firearms legislation. Hauskalainen cites Helsingin Sanomat, where the major shooting sports groups express their satisfaction with the proposed legislation. Taprup gives a single webpage address which seems to be a site of a pressure group against the proposals. The site includes the official statements of some of the shooting sports' associations. However, that page includes numerous factual mistakes.

For example, the statement of Reserviläisurheiluliitto ("Reservists' Sports Association") is actually the statement of Reserviläisliitto ("Reservists' Association", an entirely different body) and contrary to the summary, it has a positive tone towards the proposed legislation. The Finnish Sport Shooting Association also present constructive criticism, not a flat rejection of the proposal. The Finnish Hunter's Association's statement is not referenced at all on the site, as it is positive in tone.

Overall, the most disputed points of the new legislation are the hand-weapon license renewal after five years, the definition of "sustained practice" and the details of shooting instrutor licensing procedures. The other main points are not disputed. For example, only the Finnish Psychological Association criticice the use of psychological tests during the firearm licence approval procedure and no shooting sports body is against the use of military health and service records by the licensing authority. Thus, the statement all major firearm interest groups published their discontent on proposal and appealed to withdraw it, as it includes many anti constitutional elements and regulations that offend widely accepted universal principles of civil rights -- goes too far. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs clarification

I removed the text

, suggesting that people over 20 years old are mature enough to carry unloaded semiautomatic pistols freely after receiving a permit

from section Proposed changes to the regulations since it suggests that the committee mentioned general carry of firearm. There is nothing of the kind in the referenced parliament document and I'm not sure what was meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rackham (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)