Only one person in Turku died, because it was a stabbing spree and not a shooting spree. If this had been in the US, there would have been far more fatalities, which isn’t conjecture – we can see that from our pattern of mass shootings.
Irrational supporters of an unchecked Second Amendment will continue to peddle the fantasy that an armed populace would have prevented that person from being murdered, because after the attacker had stabbed a few people, some vigilante with perfect aim would have taken him out if everyone was armed.
One, that’s demonstrably false because we regularly have interviews here in the US after a shooting where the “good guys with a gun” did *not* shoot because they didn’t want the police to be confused about the identity of the real criminal, and they weren’t sure where they should be shooting anyway.
Two, an armed populace means *everyone* is armed – the good guys and the bad guys. Your “good guy with a gun” can’t prevent a stabbing when that attacker also has a gun and has already shot five people in the time it would have taken to stab one.
This is what a violent attacking spree looks like in a developed country with appropriate respect and restrictions on guns. You can’t change human nature and you can’t prevent some humans from going rogue and turning violent. What you can do is restrict access to machinery built for the purpose of killing in order to mitigate the damages and loss of life.