Make Finland the Land of Shooting Badassery Again

[UPDATE: Added this image, with thanks to Will @Abraczinskas for the pointer; author unknown.]

The Guardian (Miranda Bryant) reports:

Finland plans to open more than 300 new shooting ranges to encourage more citizens to take up the hobby in the interest of national defence.

It is hoped that shooting in the Nordic country—which last year became Nato's newest member and which shares a 830-mile (1,330km) border with Russia—could become as popular as football or ice hockey.

Ah, the elephant bear in the room, which in this instance the article does talk about.

There are about 670 shooting ranges in Finland, down from about 2,000 at the turn of the century. By 2030, the government plans to increase the number to about 1,000….

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the popularity of voluntary training courses aimed at teaching reservists and civilians how to defend Finland has doubled. There has also been a big increase in the number of Finns applying for gun licences….

This of course puts one in mind of The White Death. Keep up the spirit, Finns.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

The winter war.
Finland damn near defeated the Soviets and had to pay a whole lot of reparations to them. Finns are one of the few people that the Russians are afraid of -- and with good reason.

[Caphon]

I believe that after the reparations agreement, wherein Finland gave over land (what, a million acres?), a Soviet general was to have remarked publicly that they got just enough land out of the deal to bury their war dead. Something like a 40 or 50-to-1 kill ratio in Finland’s favor. I am speaking only from memory so my numbers may be off. But of course the other lesson from the Winter War that may be relevant to Ukraine is that Russia historically has a very high tolerance for war dead.

[tylertusta]

Nearly defeated? No.

Not by any rational measure. There was never any point during the Winter War where the Soviets were even close to losing.

[AmosArch]

The problem with giving up your right to self defense is you’re basically making a bet that the government will be competent forever.

[Ed Grinberg]

And that it won't turn malign...
Once you give up your guns, be prepared to give up everything else too. (What are you gonna do when the government decides to disenfranchise you / take your property / put you & your family in a cattle-car for "deportation" -- wave your hands?)

[gVOR08]

WIKI has a page, "Firearms regulation in Finland". All privately owned guns must be licensed and registered. Hunting and shooting sports are popular and are valid reasons for a license - for a suitable gun. "In the 1980s and 1990s, roughly 7% of firearm licenses were granted for the purpose of personal protection. However they have stopped giving licences on that basis, although existing permits remain valid. It is still possible to obtain a licence for pepper spray for the purpose of self-defense if a concrete threat exists. Carrying a firearm licensed for hunting or sporting use outside of that specific activity is not allowed." American style wild west "self defense" doesn't seem relevant to this topic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Odd that Eugene doesn’t mention this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you insinuating that he is a misleading, polemical, partisan cherry-picker?

[MoreCurious]

No, he's just a simple gun-hugger trying to convince us that more firearms are the answer to every problem. By the way, if gVOR08 is correct, it sounds as if Finland could probably explain the purpose of the Second Amendment better than Scalia did.

[Kazinski]

More guns are the answer to only one problem: how do we satisfy consumer demand from citizens that have the right to keep and bear arms?

[Frank Drackman]

Define "polemical" without looking it up.

[AmosArch]

EV’s point is that Finland has a surprisingly open gun culture given the usual stereotypes and is opening up more. Not that its gun culture is as open as America’s in every single aspect.

[Voize]

Whatever EV intended as a message, what comes across is that a vibrant gun culture can coexist with sensible regulation, and the US should break out of its firearm death spiral and look to Finland for a model.

[Absaroka]

"look to Finland for a model"

Don't forget this part of the model:

"Under the Finnish constitution, every male aged between 18 and 60 must complete national army service..."

[Voize]

I'm not sure of your point - despite its name, the 'military service' obligation in Finland can be met with civilian service - but if it is to read the word "Militia" back into the Second Amendment then that would indeed be a start.

[Absaroka]

Two points:

1)When the model is A)universal conscription/service and B)gun restrictions, a model with B but not A isn't the same model.

2)I am a fan of universal service ... it has a number of benefits, from immediate social and economic ones, for both society and the individuals, to the more obvious one of having a lot of organized people available for hurricanes/earthquakes/wildfires/Carrington Event/etc.

[Voize]

I'm trying to understand why you think it is one model instead of two. I take it you believe that Finnish gun restrictions wouldn't work without Finnish conscription. Finland also has a fully developed welfare state with universal health care, free daycare for children under 5, and free post-secondary education. Are those also inextricably part of the one big model?

[Absaroka]

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, you want to make it difficult for your society being taken over by an evil minority, whether that is a dictator of your own nationality that takes over, or a foreign one that marches in and takes over.

For the foreign threat, you can just have a professional standing army. It can be composed of hired mercenaries or your own citizens. Unfortunately, history shows that model isn't resistant to a home grown dictator, or coup d'etat by some general.

How do you prevent that? One way is to have conscription. People who are serving their term and expecting to go home afterwards are less likely to be willing to oppress the people they recently came from and expect to go home to. The ones that have completed their term still remember their military training. This model lets you be more restrictive of general arms ownership.

The other way is to have a non-conscripted career military, but allow unrestricted civilian arms ownership. The professional military may decide its sympathies lie with the government, but it faces the prospect of being greatly outnumbered by the lightly armed militia.

There are, of course, many variations possible. I personally like the Swiss model, where local units have their hidden caches of weapons (and not just rifles - mortars, mines, ATGMs, and whatever) hidden where the central defense ministry doesn't know where they are, thus preventing an evil central government seizing them (and preventing a Quisling from betraying them to an invader).

There are lots of ways to skin the cat, but giving the government the ability to monopolize all the potential force isn't one of them.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure of your point either.

The Article 1 Militia clause does allow Congress to impose Military service through either the militia or regular military service on Americans.

I'm have absolutely no idea what power you think the militia preface of the 2nd amendment gives Congress that the Article 1 Militia clause does not.

Care to explain?

[larrydj9000]

"...and look to Finland for a model."

I did! I picked up a Finnish rifle for elk hunting. The model is a Sako A7 300 WSM. <1moa accuracy. A buddy has another Finnish model, a Tikka T3.

[MeanGene]

But most US advocates for "sensible" regulation of firearms ( and a fair debate could be had about what is and is not "sensible") are openly hostile to anything resembling a "vibrant gun culture". If you don't believe that, explain why most urban daily papers stopped reporting National Match scores a couple of generations ago.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but that but Finnish gun regulation doesn't comport to the text of the 2nd Amendment, nor the tradition and history of gun regulation in the US.

While many Finns(and their Russian neighbors of course) might object to the imposition of a foreign gun culture such as ours on them. We have not only cultural reasons but a constitutional imperative not too allow Finnish gun culture to imposed upon Americans, any more than we would allow Chinese speech regulation to become the law of the land.

[Jerry B.]

If you can pass the background check and meet a few other requirements, you can buy an M1 Garand from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and have it shipped to your home. There are many places you can practice and compete with it, many listed on the CMP site thecmp.org.

[Frank Drackman]

Those are some really sweet rifles, and according to someone who should know, General George S. Patton
“In my opinion, the M1 rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised.”
Have a CMP and my favorite (but not my Rotator Cuff's) a "Tanker" version in 7.62 NATO

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Shooting badassery”

Yet more proof that advocacy of gun rights is motivated not by legitimate public interests but by masculinity issues. For an ivory tower academic to use such language is revealing. Unfortunately there are people who suffer the real life consequences of such (shall we say) cockiness and they do not agree with him.

[Sarcastr0]

I cringed as well, but I'll chalk it up to a joke.

Finns are even today pretty badass with or without guns, I'd wager.

[MaddogEngineer]

It's funny hearing you guys mock "masculinity", when you also get the vapors at others being incredulous that some believing there are 57 genders.

[Stella Link the dog]

"there are 57 genders."

57 seems like a lot. But, if gender is binary, there are at least 10 genders.

[Voize]

Henry J. Heinz originally used the "57 varieties" slogan to advertise how many kinds of pickles he claimed to sell, then later generalized it to his full product line (which numbered more than 57). I don't believe he ever applied it to genders though.

[Eugene Volokh]

I see what you're doing there. Funny!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

People who invoke masculinity problems for anything -- guns, cars, boats, money -- always make me wonder why they care so much about others' perceived masculinity problems.

[Eugene Volokh]

"Shooting badassery" refers to the closing line of the post, "This of course puts one in mind of The White Death. Keep up the spirit, Finns." It is also reflected in the Finnish sniper image that I later added to the post, in response to a Tweet from a reader who understood the reference. And of course the quote from the newspaper article makes clear that this is training aimed at resisting a future Russian invasion: "Shares a 830-mile (1,330km) border with Russia"; "how to defend Finland"; plus my "bear in the room."

During the Russo-Finnish war, the Finns earned a reputation as extraordinarily courageous and effective fighters, and in particular great snipers. It's true that Finnish soldiers at the time were male, much as pretty much all soldiers then (and the great majority of soldiers now) are male. War, offensive and defensive, has long been the province of men, though of course with some exceptions. But the Finns' reputation stemmed from their strength at resisting the invaders, and not from any "masculinity" as such.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ok, and thanks for responding. But Finnish sniper culture is possible only because of the strict gun control that gVORO8 points out. Otherwise it would just be a country awash in guns with citizens shooting each other which is what we have here.

[Frank Drackman]

It's mostly citizens of a particular hue shooting other citizens of a particular hue. Sounds like you have some Visual as well as Testicular ish-yews.

Frank

[Armchair]

Seems the US is doing a pretty good job of training its snipers, based on the international results. Winning more than 95% of the competitions.

https://www.moore.army.mil/Sniper-Competition/Results.html

[Michael P]

No, we have a country awash in shooting each other because we don't enforce basic criminal laws against thugs. See also the Kansas City post-Super Bowl shooting.

[MeanGene]

But at the same time, "mainstream" media does its best to avoid reporting on legitimate firearms use. When was the last time the New York Times sports section reported the results of a target shooting match?

[Rossami]

Wow, so much wrong in one post. The "Finnish sniper culture" that saved them during the Winter War predated all the "strict gun control" that gVORO8 ranted about.

[MaddogEngineer]

So what about "strict gun control"? Finland does not have the United State's history of inalienable rights preexisting any government or constitution. One of them being the right to keep and bear arms, subsequently recognized by the Second Amendment.

I'm not really interested in your straw man, that gun regulation doesn't necessarily stifle general firearm proficiency. Sure, okay, in this case. The "pro-gun" argument is that such restrictions could. And that's not something the people of the United States want to risk, having rights infringed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Finland does not have the United State’s history of inalienable rights preexisting any government or constitution.

Even the US does not have that history. A right is a power to stay the hand of government. Your sentence creates a paradox.

I get that you like it as rhetoric.

Also?:

subsequently recognized by the Second Amendment.

That did not happen either. For that to happen there would have had to be agreement among the states about what the 2A guaranteed. No such agreement ever existed. It is absurd to think slave states desperate to keep slaves from getting arms, and free states in which people gave thought to how to arm slaves, would ever agree on national rules to manage guns alike everywhere.

But if there was one thing all the framers came to agree upon, it was a pressing need to draft a Constitution that would get ratified alike, without reservations or changes, by all the states. Even most of the Anti-Federalists were persuaded of that, after a brief interval spent failing to figure out how to set in motion a second constitutional convention.

To make the best of that awkward political impasse, the framers picked out the one part of gun culture all the states mostly agreed upon—which was protection of popular access to militias. Each state in favor had its own reasons to ratify militia uses, but after ratification the differences would not matter. State constitutions and state laws were left as locally tailorable controls or supports for all other gun uses.

That is the history of what happened. Whatever else you think you know came to you via penumbras and emanations from living constitutionalism, after right wingers took up that doctrine when they got power in the Court to enjoy it.

[SimonP]

This is a lot of words to… not exactly address Captcrisis’s point. Perhaps there is another way to make it clearer.

Suppose that a legal and trained gun owner uses his firearm to shoot an unleashed dog who is in the process of attacking a small child (not his own). He shoots and kills the dog before any serious harm comes to the child, for which the child’s parents are grateful. For their part, the dog owner is saddened by their dog’s unexpectedly violent behavior and its consequences, but understanding of the exigent need.

There are two ways we can think of the gun owner’s actions. One is to valorize his competent and timely use of the firearm – it’s an example “badassery.” Good thing he had a gun! Way to go, man! Another is to recognize the need for lethal force while to a certain degree regretting that it became necessary. A dog – even a suddenly violent one – is essentially an innocent creature, and in many of these situations the dog owner is at least somewhat at fault (for not training or socializing the dog properly, for not keeping it leashed or muzzled, as necessary, etc.). So we regret the loss of life, and focus less on the “heroics” of the gun owner.

We might in some sense appreciate the heroics and efficacy of a bunch of Finnish snipers protecting their country and homeland from an invasion of a numerically superior force. But I think underlying Captcrisis’s point is an appreciation of the fact that “the White Death” is still a slaughterer of human beings, and of numerous men whose primary sin is likely to have been being insufficiently connected or wealthy enough to avoid being tossed into a battle as cannon fodder. Those Finns may have valiantly defended their country, but they did so by killing hundreds of men who simply did not deserve to die in the grander scheme of things.

To speak of this in terms of “badassery” is to engage in an objectification of those killed, and a kind of juvenile masculine mindset. It ignores the moral complexities of war and military violence and flattens everything to “good guys” and “bad guys,” “heroes” and “villains.”

And it is specious in the extreme to insinuate that a pervasive gun culture – like that you and others are trying to inspire in the US – has anything to do even with your flattened and juvenile thinking about those Finnish snipers. The infantile Americans who fantasize about using their guns in “self-defense” have in mind not an overwhelming force of organized soldier bent on invading our territory, but migrants at the border and protesters blocking the highway. They are not would-be “heroes,” and we should not feed their fantasies.

[Kazinski]

"A dog – even a suddenly violent one – is essentially an innocent creature"

Ridiculous. They are predators, they are dangerous when violent because they have teeth that evolved to rip flesh from bones. That some of their natural aggressiveness has been bred out of them, and then pampered throughout their lives can't totally overwhelm their essential nature. Just see what happens when packs of ferel dogs have a chance to reclaim their essential nature.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yet more proof that advocacy of gun rights is motivated not by legitimate public interests but by masculinity issues."

Strange that when you think of badassery you think of masculinity. Women can't be badasses?

[Armchair]

Supposed liberals often have quite dramatic streaks of sexism and racism.

[Frank Drackman]

My 2 daughters get paid to fly jets with 20mm machine guns, the one on the FA-18 literally is between her legs, the F-16 is behind her and to the left (she is a lefty). They also both carry, one legally, the other not so much as she's in California.

Frank

[M L]

Strange indeed, and sexist. My sisters are more proficient with a firearm than he is, presumably.

[Armchair]

On a different note, we should talk about "badassery," what it really means, and why it is actually desirable. In this context, "badassery" is a synonym for "cool" or something that looks to be desirable from a social perspective. That's important. Here's why.

The military, is frankly, not a very desirable job, from a objective standpoint. Especially at the enlisted ranks. The pay is...ok...at best. You have to be under orders all the time, sometimes under real jerks. They move you all around the country (or outside it), basically according to their will. There are the physical demands. Then there's the risk of being shot at.

There are plenty of other jobs out there which end up paying more, are more stable, and have better longer term prospects. Especially if you're willing to move where ever, are prepared for the physical demands, and more. Garbage Truck driver...it ain't pretty, but it can pay well, and you don't get shot. On location miners, civilian seaman, and more.

So, how do you convince people to sign up for this job (the military) voluntarily? In addition to other benefits, you make it socially desirable. You make it a mark of prestige. You make it a sacrifice for one's country. An honorable profession. It's something cool that they don't want to be failed out of. That gets you the right type of people, the people who think about the profession that way.

But what happens if you do the opposite? You socially discourage it, even subtly. You view it as "eww, that person is military. They might be dangerous. They use guns!" Then you get less recruits...or at least less of the good sort of recruits for the military. You get more people who "have" to be there. Who have no other options. Who have a more checkered past, with morals they may bring in. Or who just don't care at all, and do the bare minimum. This leads to a less effective military, and ironically, one that lines up more with your preconceptions.

Point of all this is, social attitudes matter. And by socially discouraging certain professions, that can actually make the profession...and the people in it...worse on average. And if you're depending on such people for your country's security...that may be a bad idea.

[Kazinski]

I was raised as both a feminist and masculist.

And to claim "shooting badassery" is the exclusive province of only men is belied by the fact to this day Annie Oakley is still the most famous American Marksman.

[dwb68]

1st link, Guardian, is wrong. it links to white death Wikipedia page, not Guardian.

[Eugene Volokh]

Fixed, thanks!

[Stephen Lathrop]

“Shooting badassery” refers to the closing line of the post, “This of course puts one in mind of The White Death. Keep up the spirit, Finns.

From the link:

Häyhä was able to estimate distances with an accuracy of 1 metre (3.3 ft) up to 150 metres (500 ft).

I have no doubt Häyhä was also able to misestimate distances at that range, and at even longer ranges. Not that it matters much. Anyone familiar with ballistics understands that with WW II era rifles, ranges out to 150 meters are not generally distance critical for aim. Sights can be adjusted to deliver practical point-blank aim at such close ranges.

I mention that not to in any way disparage the courage, patriotism, or skill of Häyhä. He sounds like an extraordinarily dangerous foe.

But here on the VC we get confronted by pro-gun advocates who are suckers for romanticized gun propaganda. That needs to be called out when it makes its all-too-frequent appearances.

[MaverickNH]

“…by pro-gun advocates who are suckers for romanticized gun propaganda.”

We’ve just been through an era where several million became new gun owners, thinking it prudent to have some personal means of self-defense. While thought to have been related to the rise in homicides during this era, the subsequent decline in homicides has not caused a retraction of that speculation, which continues to appear in the press and academic literature.

The Finns appear to have moved from considering firearms ownership and skills as prudent, to necessity, based on proximity to an aggressor. It’s harder to find a parallel in the US, but we never so extensively disarmed to then create a need to re-arm should the need present itself.

Some think, when the time comes, it’s time to start buying and burying guns. Others think that’s the time to start digging them back up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there any political tactic for right wingers less cost-effective than buying and burying guns? My friend Bloggins is all for it.

My advice, just be sure when you buy guns and bury them to pitch all the ammunition you can afford into the hole with the guns. After you get more savings, do it again.

[Michael P]

In the real world, as opposed to Lathrop's fevered (even fervid) imagination, a sniper's targets are often in motion, and so it's important to understand distance to target for the purpose of leading them appropriately.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Don't mess with the Finns. They are capable of some tremendous athletic feats. Like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd-I_9fn7-4&t=780s

[Mr. Bumble]

One of the reasons for creating the NRA was to improve civilian familiarity with firearms in part because of the poor marksmanship of union soldiers during the Civil War.

[Doug Huffman]

. . . compared to their opponents.

Consider further analogies between Russia and the US; Putin trying to re-make his union and Lincoln-16 killing his union to save the Union (Greeley, qv).

Now secession is more political grist as the VP(?) says Texas cannot secede. America, quo vadis?

[John F. Carr]

The illustration reminds me of an old cartoon with the caption "Arizona landscape with Apache".

[Currentsitguy]

Speaking of badasses, Finland has given us one of my favorite YouTube channels.

The Hydraulic Press Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@HydraulicPressChannel

[Craig Johnston]

Assuming his dry sense of humor is typical of his culture (“we must DEAL with it”), I think I’ll add visiting Finland to my bucket list.

[Nige]

You have to go back to WWII for that kind of romantic nostalgia for a warrior ethos. On there other side there were some amazing female Russian snipers taking out Nazis. Most snipers since then are known for targeting civilians.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Most snipers since then are known for targeting civilians."
Only if you are talking about Chicago.

[Nige]

No, I’m talking about Kosovo, mainly.

And, if reports turn out to be true, the IDF.

[Scooter]

Reports from...............................Hamas?

The people that deliberately murdered over 1000 civilians?

M'kay.

You do you, Boo

[Nige]

No. Reports from all sorts of people.

[Kazinski]

I seem to remember some movies in the last 10-20 years glorifying military snipers taking out military targets.

I don't remember any movies about Serbian snipers killing Bosnians.

[Absaroka]

Estonia is also preparing for civilian resistance (sorry if paywalled):

"Her face puffy from lack of sleep, Vivika Barnabas peered down at the springs, rods and other parts of a disassembled assault rifle spread before her....We just have to stay alive,” Ms. Barnabas said of the main idea behind the Jarva District Patrol Competition, a 24-hour test of the skills useful for partisans, or insurgents, to fight an occupying army,...Since the Ukraine war, Estonia has stepped up training for members of the Estonian Defense League, teaching them how to become insurgents, right down to the making of improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.s"

"Encouraging citizens to stash warm clothes, canned goods, boots and a rifle may seem a cartoonish defense strategy against a military colossus like Russia. Yet the Estonians say they need look no further than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to see the effectiveness today, as ever, of an insurgency to even the odds against a powerful army."

"The number of firearms, mostly Swedish-made AK-4 automatic rifles, that Estonia has dispersed among its populace is classified. But the league said it had stepped up the pace of the program since the Ukraine crisis began. Under the program, members must hide the weapons and ammunition, perhaps in a safe built into a wall or buried in the backyard."

[Nige]

Most of the proud-defender-of-liberty gun extremists in the US have no fucking idea.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And (unless they live in Alaska), no Russian neighbors.

[Nige]

It's the way they keep threatening civil war every time their Dear Leader is thwarted. They have met the enemy, and it is them.

[Kazinski]

Careful what you wish for.

[OtisAH]

Huh, I thought guns were necessary for overthrowing your own government when rights are extended to people you don’t like? What’s all this bullshit about “national defense”? Are they stupid?

[Nige]

Guns: we'll need them for rounding up the neighbours.

[MaddogEngineer]

So you guys don't know what the militia is? Odd because the word appears in our Second Amendment.

Your neighbor belongs to the militia. One of its purposes is to prevent your neighbor (or yourself) from being unlawfully rounded up. Sure sounds like you're making a case for self-defense.

Of course the militia could be misused. Not sure why you presume that by default. Especially when the gun control crowd claims individuals don't need guns, since the police are armed. Really confused about who you think you need protecting from.

[Nige]

Or they'll start by rounding up illegals, for Trump, and anyone who looks like an illegal. It'll either be so easy and fun they'll move on to those dangerous wokies of various categories, or if anyone resists, that'll be a reason to escalate.

I'm not sure that's what gun control people do say.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Statistically, they are most (measurably) useful for committing suicide, but that's not their only (or perhaps most noble) purpose.

[SRG2]

As a side note, three Finnish Jews were nominated for Iron Crosses for their heroism against the Soviets. They rejected the nomination.