Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Shooter's YouTube account didn't help

Mathew Ingram, September 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM EST

Whenever there's a terrible event like the school shooting at Dawson College in Montreal in 2006, or the shootings at Virginia Tech last year, many people look at the YouTube videos uploaded by the killers and wonder why someone didn't alert the authorities to the murderous themes in their videos and the potential mental instability of the shooters.

In the most recent school shooting -- in which Matti Juhani Saari opened fire and killed as many as 10 students at a school in Finland on Tuesday, before shooting himself in the head -- people concerned about Saari's potential for violence did exactly that. They notified the authorities about the videos, including one in which he was shown firing a pistol and then pointing it at the video camera and saying "You will die next."

Police even went so far as to interview Saari at his home on Monday, which they also searched. According to news reports, however, they found that Saari had a temporary permit to carry a gun, and said they could find no reason to either hold him or take the weapon. The next day, he arrived at the school with at least one gun and started shooting, as well as setting fires in various places along the way (there have also been reports that the gunman carried explosives). At last report, 10 people were dead and several more injured.

The gunman's YouTube account was removed after his name was reported in connection with the shootings, but a number of sites had already copied many of the videos and taken screenshots of his YouTube page. Although several of the videos (some of which are available here as well as here) show Saari firing a pistol, and violent lyrics from a German heavy metal band appear on the page -- where one of his favourites is a video related to the Columbine school shootings -- there are no explicit signs that he planned a school rampage, apart from the "You will die next" video clip. What more could the authorities have done?

  1. globefan Eh from Canada writes: The world should ban handguns, they contribute nothing except profit to arms dealers and are designed quite simply to kill people.

    There are those who feel so emasculated they need a gun to prove their manliness..not too many women going around killing people in multiples.

    A sad day for Finland and the families of those young people with so much promise.
  2. Malba Talban from Burlington, Canada writes: It is just as much sad to see this deranged shooter as it is to read comments such as "the world should ban handguns". Both shooter and writer have an obviously warped and misinformed view of the world. I'd like to ask to the writer -- since the shooter is dead -- to take a moment and think of the feasibility of such plea. Will every manufacturer stop the production of handguns now, say over the course of one year? To whom are you addressing this plea, and where is this "legally constituted entity" located? In the event of an absolute, world-wide ban, who will collect the existing handguns? Who will enforce that there be no more handguns? More importantly HOW will you enforce such ban and who PAYS for this carnival? Will you create a registry? What will you register next: knives? Have you consider that the moment you stop production here, it will spring up elsewhere? Have you consider that if people want to kill, they will?

    Please, spare me.

    Quite frankly, wearing white garments and wave signs up and down does not do it for me. Maybe I'm the one with the wrong view; perhaps a skeptic one. But please, pretty please, let us cut the peace-talk and have some action going, shall we?

    How about an application process involving medical record for mental illness? (uuuu, medical record? that's a no-no) How about revising the "rules of engagement" for police in firearms-related calls? How about locking up the lunatics?

    Accept the fact that some people like to shoot, and they don't necessarily want to shoot other people. As far as I'm concerned, a sane person with a gun is much, much preferable to the lunatic that the government has let loose on the street.

    Maybe it's time to "force" peace, rather than mouth-flap about it. Maybe it's time to ban the lunatics.
  3. BART . from Canada writes: The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill other humans. Unless you are in the military or law enforcement there is no reason to own a handgun.
  4. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Actually there are many reasons to own a handgun.
    Target shooting and recreational shooting. I personally enjoy a day at the range and the challenge of shooting targets. So do many others. it is even an Olympic sport.
    Hunting. Some high caliber pistols are used in hunting. It can be a challenge to attempt to get within pistol range of a game animal.
    Personal protection. While I personally don't feel a handgun lends me any more personal protection in the home. Some do and it is their right to do what they want to make themselves feel safer.
    A pistol can be handy when backpacking in bear country and may be the difference between coming home or not.
    Collecting. Some people collect hockey cards and some collect leaves others collect fine weapons. I can appreciate the value and craftsmanship that goes into making a fine weapon.
    Banning solves nothing but making the self righteous feel better about themselves.
  5. Ipso Facto from Canada writes: There's really no way to prevent nut cases from killing. Ban handguns? They'll use a rifle, a bomb, arson, a car or some other method to kill innocent people. Unfortunately this is reality of modern society that we need to accept. If someone is intent on killing there's not much we can do about it except try to identify them before they do. But how do you know anyone's true intent before the act?
  6. kitty kumari from Canada writes:

    "SHOOTER'S YOUTUBE ACCOUNT DIDN'T HELP"

    ... Really?!?!? You think!!

    Mom didn't help.

    Dad didn't help.

    Everyone else in the family didn't help.

    Elementry School didn't help.

    High School didn't help.

    Guidance Councellors didn't help.

    Psychiatrists didn't help.

    Children's Aid didn't help.

    Youth Shelters didn't help.

    Group Homes didn't help.

    The Mental Institution didn't help.

    The Police Force didn't help.

    Adult Shelters didn't help.

    The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health didn't help.

    A.D.D. Doctors didn't help.

    So.....

    What makes you think YouTube's gonna help?
  7. g man from Canada writes: the ridiculous comments posted here stun me. it's amusing that the guy who goes by "biggest redneck" seems to have made the most insightful comment thus far. can we have some balance on this issue instead of a whole bunch of people hysterically jumping around screaming dumb opinions? handguns are a specific problem because they make it very easy for one person to kill a lot of people. end of story. ipso facto, if someone REALLY wanted to kill others, like tim mcveigh, then there is no way to stop them - they will find a way. but that's not the common "nutcase" as you call them, who just snaps one day and walks into a school or post office and starts shooting people up. in the absence of access to handguns, for these individuals, it would involve a degree of planning beyond their capabilities to build a bomb, or even acquire a rifle and walk into their chosen place of killing unnoticed, to wreak the amount of havoc they can accomplish with a handgun and a lot of ammo. and if they use a car or a baseball bat they simply could not kill so many people. so having easy access to handguns kills people, plain and simple. should we ban them? some of redneck's reasons for having handguns are valid, but i question whether you need a handgun for protection if no-one else around you has one. and as for collecting, maybe i'd love to collect elephant tusks, redneck, but that's just not going to happen, so that doesn't wash. but given the vast majority of handgun owners who enjoy a day at the range in a sport that definitely involves skill and technique, and never even think of shooting anyone, an outright ban is extreme.
  8. g man from Canada writes: malba talban, come on. your only arguments against banning handguns are of a logistical nature. give me a break. that's no justification for not trying to ban something if it truly represents a threat to human welfare - we do the same with landmines and poisonous chemicals, with variable success. oh, and 'let's "force" peace...maybe it's time to ban the lunatics"' - yeah ok. that'll be way easier than banning handguns, from a logistical standpoint, eh? never mind the infringement on human rights. what shall we do when someone is "banned" as a lunatic - lock them up for life, or just shoot them with a handgun? apart from the ludicrous nature of this proposal, i'm pretty sure that neither this finnish kid, or the columbine shooters, had any history for criminally insane behaviour before the actual incident - so how does that '"force peace"? maybe you'd be happy to play self-appointed psychologist and stasi police in one, and go find anyone who posts a violent youtube video and throw them in the slammer. maybe instead of banning lunatics we'd have a lot more peace banning the likes of you, sir.
  9. Darrell Potts from Columbus, United States writes: You can expect these types of tragedies to increase astronomically! The reason for this is simple: "Your-Society" ignores the truth and exalts those who commit these crimes instead of those who work to prevent them. Whenever new agencies do refer to the so-called "experts" they actually refer to the ones who are responsible for the increase of these spectacular tragedies! Those who claim to be experts are not experts, the true experts are those who have lived a life like mine. Read up on this at Z-TRON.com so you can understand the truth.
  10. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: g man I only wish that a little balance could be brought to the issue. The problem with the ban crowd is they have siezed upon a solution and since it does them no harm figure they have it all figured out. Notice how the first poster tried to make himself feel even better and more self righteous by trying to link the using firearms to sexual inadequacy. Reasonable laws regarding firearms are a must and most owners of firearms are in favor of reasonable restrictions. They won't stop everyone though and everytime someone uses a gun in a crime or some lunatic does something crazy and gets around the laws the ban crowd starts up again. I feel like I commited a crime and have to defend myself everytime something happens even thoughI have broken no laws and done nothing wrong. Yet the ban crowd wants to punish me. The problem is most of the ban crowd don't know what laws exist already and pandering politcians ( see Toronto ) will try to tell them how much safer they will be when all guns are banned. Doesn't matter that they won't be. So the firearms community is forced to fight every law now ( even reasonable ones ) because once you give one they move on to the next ( once again see Toronto and the mayor wanting to ban legal gun ranges ). Collecting elephant tusks has nothing to do with firearms and I believe has no relation to collecting guns. One is an inamimate object the other comes from an endangered species and the trade is banned so the species does not go extinct. Yes any lunatic will find a way to kill as many people as they want. There are many methods available. Take away guns and they move to the next. You can't ban everything. A well placed fire will do in way more people then a gun.
  11. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: g man
    As to your questioning of the need for a handgun for protection if nobody else has one.
    As we well know criminals don't really care if their gun is legal or not so if handguns are illegal ( which they mostly are already in Canada ) the only person with a gun will be the criminal.
    I don't really feel the need to keep one in the house myself now that I live down here but I sure wanted one when I lived in Vancouver.
    Its a fact that criminals are less likely to attack an innocent if they " know " that they are unarmed. Thus the reason crime goes down where concealed carry laws are allowed.
    Lots of home invasions in Vancouver since the safe storage laws came into place. Not so much in Texas though where they think twice about whose home they are going into.
  12. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Sorry that should have read.
    More likely to attack an innocent if they" know" they are unarmed
  13. kitty kumari from Canada writes: g man from Canada writes:

    can we have some balance on this issue instead of a whole bunch of people hysterically jumping around screaming dumb opinions?

    ...

    yes master.
  14. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: I think the biggest threat to a civilized society is not handguns or rifles or landmines or ballistic missiles.

    It's You-Tube.

    Got a camera in your phone? Want to post an embarrassing video? Want to make a threat against someone? Go to You-Tube, get your Warhol minutes and destroy someone's life.

    Respected memeber of society caught doing a deep nasal cleanse at a stoplight? It will be on You-Tube. Having your purse dog crap on someone's lawn - viral You-Tube. The site is swiftly becoming preferred host of hate video, the original intent of You-Tube benign but it has become a repository of hate and extremism, where copycats and the clueless get their 'ideas'.

    Others may have different views.
  15. g man from Canada writes: hey redneck, the point i was trying to make about comparing collecting guns and elephant tusks is that in both cases an argument can be made that such a hobby involves a collateral effect that is detrimental enough to justify not allowing it - as you state, obviously acquiring tusks would place an already endangered species in greater jeopardy. my point about collecting handguns, then - and feel free to disagree - is that it would increase the number of guns in circulation and perhaps make them easier to acquire for everyone regardless of whether they are fit to own one. and such guns, when stolen, will make their way onto the street and into the hands of criminals. ie. you can't let collectors acquire guns without making it easier for everyone else to get one. this is somewhat related to the handguns-for-protection issue - criminals can only get guns and then invade your home with it if they can acquire them easily - tough to do in a society where there are few guns beyond the purveyance of the police and military. alright, someone could still rob, burgle, rape and kill with a knife or an axe. and don't get me wrong, if someone armed with any weapon broke into my house while i was there and i had a gun i wouldn't lose any sleep about using it. but it's so much more difficult and takes a lot more balls to commit a crime with a knife or axe, than with a gun. and way harder to kill people. in fact, in north america with our fire regulations i rather disagree with you that you can kill more people through arson than with a gun - unless you planned it out really well. again, my point is that the sudden impulsive going-postal types of killers are the ones we want to deter, and they are not the type to carefully go around orchestrating lethal fires.
  16. g man from Canada writes: perhaps some disclosure is appropriate for context: i live in toronto, and tend to be unashamedly liberal on most issues. however, nothing bothers me more than ignorance, equally so on the left and right of the political spectrum, which sadly seems to be at an unprecedented abundance in this country these days. more than anything, i rue the lack of reason and critical thinking in our supposedly educated populace.

    recently went to the range with my buddy (armed forces) to try out his glock. great fun. hoping to have a go at the AR15 soon. dude, i got nothing against firearms per se. sadly, though, i just don't know if we as a species are smart enough to have handguns around in abundance without killing each other on a regular basis. i sadly resign myself to the fact that the least worst option, if not an outright ban, is to severely restrict the average person's access to them.
  17. Mickey Hickey from Toronto, Canada writes: Finns are a sensible people it is not likely that the debate in Finland will descend into inanities like " guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "we have a right to bear arms". It is more likely to be along the lines of "we have a duty as a gov't to protect the public". My condolences go out to the friends and families of the victims and the perpetrator. To anyone who wishes to play with guns my advice is, go to Afghanistan, Iraq or some other hot spot.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top